Civil Revision No.5920/2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5920/2009 Date of decision: 23.2.2011. Smt Reshma and another .............Petitioners v Jagdish ..............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.J.S Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Jaswant Singh,J By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiffs-petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 12.9.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad whereby the appeal of the defendant-respondent was allowed while setting aside the order dated 28.7.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Faridabad allowing the application of the plaintiffs- petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit No.959 dated 12.12.2007 for permanent injunction being co- sharers and in possession of 356/889 share in the agricultural land as Civil Revision No.5920/2009 #2# described in the head note of the plaint. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondent from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners from the land in dispute. Notice of the application was given to the respondent-defendant, who opposed the same. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court allowed the application vide order dated 28.7.2009 (P.1) ordering that till the disposal of the suit, respondent-defendant is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. On an appeal having been appeal by the defendant-respondent, the same was allowed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad vide its impugned judgment dated 12.9.2009 (P.2). Hence the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire paper book. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners has argued that they are in exclusive cultivating possession of the land in dispute, however, the defendant-respondent is trying to dispossess them under the garb of sale deed executed by his vendors, namely, Ram Singh and Kamal Singh (co-sharers) and the learned trial Court has rightly granted the interim injunction in their favour while exercising the discretion judiciously but the learned District Judge has erroneously set aside the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant Civil Revision No.5920/2009 #3# -respondent has opposed the petition stating that the learned District Judge has rightly passed the impugned order dated 12.9.2009 (P.2). It is further submitted that the property has not yet been partitioned among the co-sharers but the owners are in possession of different pieces of land according to their shares. The defendant-respondent has never intended to interfere in the land in dispute rather it is the plaintiffs-petitioners, who under the garb of present proceedings, are trying to interfere in the possession of the defendant-respondent, who had purchased the land from their vendors. A perusal of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment dated 12.9.2009 reveals that during the course of arguments, the plaintiffs- petitioners were asked to specify 'as to which khasra number is in their exclusive possession' but they failed to satisfy the learned Court. Said paragraph reads thus: “During the course of arguments, the respondent was asked to specify as to which Khasra number was in his exclusive possession as his mother had mentioned that mutual partition had taken place. They did not give any answer. The counsel was asked to get in touch with his client and let the court know but they did not want to make a statement nor they wanted time to get the information.” The defendant-respondent has purchased certain land from the other co-sharers, namely, Ram Singh and Kamal Singh by way of registered sale deed and taken physical possession of the same and is in authorized possession of his share and there is no question of interfering into the possession of the land of the plaintiffs-petitioners. Civil Revision No.5920/2009 #4# Even during the course of hearing, this Court has also specifically asked the learned counsel for plaintiff-petitioners to substantiate as to which Khasra Number is/are in their possession as per the revenue record but he failed to answer the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 12.9.2009 (P.2) passed by learned District Judge, Faridabad warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 23.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge