In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2358 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 08, 2009 Kanta Devi .. Petitioner Vs. Deva Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kaithal, vide its order dated 6.4.2009 accepted the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff- petitioner (herein referred as 'the plaintiff') restraining the defendants-respondents (herein referred as 'the defendants') from interfering in his possession and destroying his crop from the suit land. The appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide its order dated 11.4.2009 and the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The factual background of the case is that the plaintiff claimed herself to be the exclusive owner and in possession of the suit land vide duly registered lease deed No.880 dated 11.7.2008. It has been further averred that she has sown the wheat crop over the suit land and the defendants who have nothing to do with the land wants to take forcible possession of the same. The allegations in the suit as well as in the application were controverted by the defendants who stated that the suit land is joint and has not been partitioned as per provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The application for partition was filed by one Tara Chand against the defendant No.1 but the partition was effected on the basis of the said application in their absence. Earlier the application for partition was filed Civil Revision No. 2358 of 2009 -2- *** by Tara Chand, but later on its title was changed and Rajbir son of Tara Chand was substituted as applicant. The defendants were never served in any manner in the partition proceedings. The plaintiffs tried to take possession of the suit property and on resistance the present suit was filed. The trial court granted injunction, whereas, the Lower Appellate Court vacated the same without holding that the order was perverse, capacious, arbitrary or in any way against the facts. The record reveals that the Lower Appellate Court fell in error in appreciating the documentary evidence in the right perspective. The land in question was partitioned at the instance of Rajbir Singh and mutation No.2287 and 2289 were sanctioned on the basis of the said partition order of Assistant Collector (Grade-II) and possession of the suit land was delivered to Rajbir Singh vide rapat dated 31.5.2008. The entry in the rapat roznamcha dated 31.5.2008 has been recorded on the basis of the warrant of possession issued by the Court of Assistant Collector (Grade-II)-cum-Tehsildar Fatehpur Pundri, District Kaithal on the basis of the order dated 17.11.2007 passed in case No.8 titled as Rajbir Singh vs. Didara and others. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the defendants contested the partition proceedings but later on, they did not appear in the court when the case was transferred to another court. As such, it is still debatable whether the defendants/respondents had no knowledge of the order but since the plaintiffs had become the owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of rapat roznamcha dated 31.5.2008 with regard to delivery of possession on the basis of the order of partition passed by a competent court. The argument raised by the counsel for the respondents that the order of partition was later on stayed by the Revenue Court is of no consequence because once the possession has been delivered, then the order of stay was of no consequence. Even otherwise, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to grant stay in the given circumstances of the case. The order of partition passed by contest or ex-parte would be treated as valid as long as the same is not set aside. Consequently, after the said order was acted upon, the respondents cease to be co-sharer cannot be said to have any balance of convenience in their favour. At the same time, the plaintiff can be said to have prima facie case in her favour for grant of injunction and she was at Civil Revision No. 2358 of 2009 -3- *** liberty to stay in the land on the strength of rapat roznamcha with regard to delivery of possession recorded in her favour. Resultantly, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.4.2009 and restore the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the trial court. September 08, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge