CR No.4983 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4983 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 13.11.2009 **** Amarjit Kaur and another . . . . Petitioners VS. Natha Singh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the defendants against the order dated 27.09.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran, whereby, on an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner- defendants have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land, as well as against the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the above-stated order of ad interim injunction. (2). Both the courts below have referred to the Revenue records comprising of Jamabandi for the year 2003-04 as well as the ‘agreement to sell’ dated 16.05.2000 executed by the previous owner of the suit land in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and have observed CR No.4983 of 2009 - 2 - that, prima facie, the respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the suit land delivered to him pursuant to the ‘agreement to sell’ dated 16.05.2000 executed between him and the previous owner. The petitioner- defendants are stated to have purchased the suit land by way of a subsequent Sale-Deed dated 10.06.1986 and 12.06.1986. (3). Counsel for the petitioners contend that the entries in the Revenue record relied upon by the respondent- plaintiff have been subsequently corrected by the Revenue authorities vide order dated 19.01.2007 and, therefore, no reliance can be placed thereupon. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The order dated 19.01.2007 has been passed by the Revenue authorities during the pendency of the suit and no reliance can be placed on the same. The Revenue record, as it existed at the relevant time, does suggest that the respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. There being very limited scope for interference by a revisional Court, the ad interim injunction orders passed by the Courts below deserve to be upheld. (5). Dismissed. (6). However, the Civil Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the pending Civil Suit as early as possible. CR No.4983 of 2009 - 3 - (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 13.11.2009 vishal shonkar