IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2450 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 26, 2009 Dalbara Singh … Petitioner Versus Zora Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. S.D. Anand, J. In an act of affirmation, both the Courts (the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court) allowed the ad-interim stay plea in favour of the plaintiffs – respondents and restrained the defendant – petitioner from interfering in former’s possession of the land in suit and also from dispossessing them therefrom during the pendency of the trial. Reliance, in support of the view, was placed upon the Khasra Girdawari entries for the period 2001-02, wherein the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs – respondents had been recorded in the column of cultivation. Both the learned Courts did not attach importance to the fact that the khasra girdawari entries had since been ordered C.R. No. 2450 of 2008 to be corrected. The learned Courts were perhaps influenced in the context by the fact that an appeal (at the hands of the plaintiffs – respondents) against the girdawari correction order was pending with the Appellate Authority. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record. None entered appearance on behalf of the respondents to assist this Court. It is apparent from the record that the khasra girdawari entries, relied upon by both the Courts for obtaining the view aforementioned, have since been corrected by the Competent Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has today placed on record an attested copy of the certified copy of the order dated 26.09.2008 vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiffs – respondents (against the girdawari correction order) has been dismissed by the Collector of Sub Division, Nabha. It is apparent therefrom that the Appellate Authority noticed, in the course of the order aforementioned, that the order with regard to the spot inspection had been passed in the open Court in the presence of the parties and, thus, no independent notice for spot inspection was required to be issued. In view, thus, of the fact that the correction of the khasra girdawari entries had already been ordered by the Competent Authority and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs – respondents against that order had also been rejected, the impugned orders (of the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court) cannot be upheld. 2 C.R. No. 2450 of 2008 The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The stay application filed by the plaintiffs – respondents shall stand rejected. March 26, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3