In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4391 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 05, 2009 Manjit Singh and others ---Petitioners versus Punjab State and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners *** SABINA J. Manjit Singh and others had filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained and prohibited forever from dispossessing them or otherwise illegally interfering in their peaceful possession over the property in dispute. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction was also filed. The said application was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),Phagwara on 8.9.2008 (Annexure P-6). In appeal, the said order was upheld by District Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P-8). Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that Civil Revision No. 4391 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the application of the plaintiffs seeking interim injunction was liable to be allowed as the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute for the last many years. In earlier civil litigation, Atam Dev singh, Tarlok Singh and Amritpal Singh were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land illegally and forcibly. For establishing that the plaintiffs were entitled for relief of temporary injunction, they were required to establish that they had prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour. Further the plaintiffs were required to establish that in case the relief of temporary injunction was not granted to them, they would suffer an irreparable loss. Learned District Judge in its impugned order has observed that Health Department and Provincial Government were shown to be owner of the property whereas the possession of the suit land was earlier in the name of Atam Dev Singh and others. A single stray entry in the jamabandi in favour of the applicants describing them to be in possession, could not be construed that the plaintiffs were in established possession. As per order dated 29.4.2005 of Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Phagwara mutation was incorporated in the name of Health Department and appeal filed by Atam Dev Singh and others has since been dismissed by the Collector, Kapurthala vide order dated 31.8.2005. The decision of the civil court in earlier litigation between the private parties was not binding on the State as the State was not a party to the said lis. The suit property vested in the State and hence, no injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiff as they had no prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour. The said findings of the learned District Judge could not be Civil Revision No. 4391 of 2009 (O&M) -3- countered by the learned counsel for the appellants. No ground for interference is made out as the plaintiffs have failed to establish the three ingredients necessary for grant of relief of temporary injunction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 05, 2009 PARAMJIT