Civil Revision No.7013 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7013 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.06.2010 Harbans Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction against the defendant/respondent from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute, except with due process of law, stands declined. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, on the plea that they were in settled and peaceful possession of the suit land since prior to 26.1.1950, without payment of rent or batai to anybody. It was claimed by the plaintiff/petitioners that the land was banjar and the plaintiffs with great efforts and by spending huge amount got the land made cultivable. The case further set up by the plaintiff/petitioners was that name of Nagar Panchayat (Municipal Corporation) was wrongly Civil Revision No.7013 of 2009 (O&M) -2- recorded in column No.4 of the jamabandi. The suit was, therefore, filed for injunction to protect the possession of the plaintiffs. It was disclosed in the plaint, that the Municipal Corporation had filed a petition under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Act, 1973 in the Court of Sh. M.S. Narang, PCS, Sub Division, Patiala, which was accepted. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs failed and the writ petition filed in this Court was also dismissed. The case of the petitioners was, that employees of the Improvement Trust had threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcefully. The suit was contested, wherein it was pleaded, that the possession of the plaintiffs was illegal and unauthorised, and they were not entitled to injunction. It was also pleaded, that property had been transferred to the defendant/respondent by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, and mutation in this regard stood recorded in the jamabandi. The learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence and the documents placed on record, came to the conclusion, that the plaintiff/petitioners did not have any prima facie case in their favour, as there was an order of eviction passed by the competent court against them, and declined the application. Mr. Gurnam Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Courts below primarily on the ground, that the eviction order was obtained by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, and not the Improvement Trust, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, therefore, the injunction application filed by the petitioners against the defendant/respondents could not have been dismissed by the Court by holding petitioners to be Civil Revision No.7013 of 2009 (O&M) -3- in illegal and unauthorised possession of the property. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners further was, that it is only the Corporation, which could evict the petitioners under the orders passed by the competent Court. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Court was deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case in hand, it is admitted by the petitioners themselves that there is an order of eviction passed against the plaintiff/petitioners, therefore, they had no legal right to retain the possession. The plea of the defendant/respondent that the property was transferred to it, by the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, and this stood incorporated in the jamabandi, and the mutation was also sanctioned. The learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion, that there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners in view of the previous order of their eviction. It also cannot be said that any irreparable loss or injury was likely to be caused to the petitioners in case injunction is declined, as petitioners have no right to continue in illegal unauthorised possession. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge June 29, 2010 R.S.