IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.376/2009 Date of Decision:22.1.2009. Dalip Singh and others ..........Petitioner. Versus Surat Singh ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla,Advocate for the petitioners-defendants. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-defendants for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P/7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners-defendants was dismissed and the order dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P/6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajpura, granting injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff was affirmed. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that respondent-plaintiff-Surat Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants, their agents, servants and representatives from harvesting/removing the wheat crops standing in his land measuring 2 bighas 1 biswa, out of total land measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas, comprised in khasra no.457/4 (4-9). Grievance of the plaintiff was that defendants, who have no right, title or interest over the suit land, in connivance with the Sarpanch of the Village were threatening to harvest and remove his wheat crop with the help of local police. It was alleged that due to his filing of complaints against police officials, now the police was against him. It was further alleged that as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99, out of total land measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas comprised in CR NO.376/2009 2 khasra no.457/4, 2 bighas 1 biswas belonged to the plaintiff while the remaining 15 biswas belonged to Kesar Kaur and others and remaining area was of Nirmal Singh and Harpal Singh etc. Alongwith the suit, respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking grant of interim injunction. Upon notice, petitioners-defendants entered appearance and filed written statement controverting the allegations of the respondent-plaintiff. Inversely, it was alleged by the petitioners-defendants that they were co-sharers and partition proceedings were pending and further that the suit land belonged to them over which they had sown the wheat crop and as such they had full right to harvest the same. It was also alleged that respondent-plaintiff was a retired Police Inspector and as such wielded influence over the police and was harassing the petitioners-defendants. The learned trial Court on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, found that prima facie case was made out in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and balance of convenience also lay in his favour and in case injunction was not granted he would suffer an irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly, learned trial court vide impugned order dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P/6) allowed the interim injunction application filed by respondent-plaintiff and petitioners-defendants were restrained from harvesting/removing the wheat crop standing in the suit land and from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said order of the trial Court, petitioners- defendants filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which also stood dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P/7), affirming the order passed by the trial Court. Hence the present revision petition. CR NO.376/2009 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has contended that they had purchased land in the joint khewat and were co-sharers in possession. It was further contended that the partition proceedings between the petitioners- defendants and respondent-plaintiff were pending wherein respondent-plaintiff has admitted that he is in possession of 1 bigha 10 biswas in khasra no.457/4 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and perused the impugned orders. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that respondent-plaintiff is not in possession of the land measuring 2 bighas 1 biswa is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same can only be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Prima facie,both the Courts below have exercised their discretion and came to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff is in possession of 2 bighas 1 biswa. The respondent-plaintiff has placed on record jamabandi for the year 1998-99,wherein he is shown as owner in possession of the suit land. Possession of respondent-plaintiff over the suit land also finds mention in the khasra girdwari for the year 2004. On the other hand, except bald assertions petitioners- defendants, in support of their pleadings have not adduced any documentary evidence to show that they were in possession of the suit property or any part of khasra no.457/4 (4-9). Thus, both the courts attaching presumption of truth to the revenue record i.e. jamabandi and khasra girdwari, prima facie found that respondent-plaintiff has made out a case for grant of interim injunction in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, which may require interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Hence the present CR NO.376/2009 4 revision petition stands dismissed in limine. However, it is clarified that the impugned orders dated 26.8.2006 (Annexure P/6) and 17.12.2008 (Annexure P/7) shall be applicable till the finalisation of the partition proceedings between the parties. No costs. Nothing stated above, shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main suit pending between the parties. 22.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge