Civil Revision No. 1878 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1878 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.1.2009 M/s Piyush Infrastructures India Private Limited and another ..... Petitioners vs Daya Chand Jatav and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby that of the trial court was reversed and application filed by the respondent/ plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent no.1 /plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming that the property in dispute in his possession was given in oral donation by late Shri Gajender Pal Singh to him in July 1967 and since then he was residing in the property. The possession is open, hostile and adverse to the knowledge of respondents no. 2 to 4/ defendants no. 1 to 3, who are legal representatives of late Shri Gajender Pal Singh. The learned trial court dismissed the application for interim injunction whereas the learned Lower Appellate Court directed that the respondent/plaintiff be not dispossessed from the property unless in due course of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the two pleas raised by the respondent/plaintiff in his suit are contradictory to each other. On the one hand, the claim was made of ownership of the property on the basis of donation by late Shri Gajender Pal Singh, and on the other hand, adverse possession on the property was sought to be claimed, which necessarily meant that ownership of some one else is admitted. No evidence or document was produced on record to show prima-facie case of donation Civil Revision No. 1878 of 2008 (2) of property and as regards the claim of ownership on the basis of adverse possession, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that the learned Lower Appellate Court has gone wrong in granting injunction in favour of respondent/plaintiff against the true owner, the petitioners who had purchased the property from M/s G. H. R. Industries. The small portion of property in possession of respondent/plaintiff is part of big plot where the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of a room. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that the fact that he is in possession of the property has been admitted by the petitioners/defendants in the written statement filed before the learned trial court wherein it is stated that the respondent/plaintiff was engaged as a Chowkidar by late Shri Gajender Pal Singh who was the owner of M/s G. H. R. Industries and since then he was living there and once he is possession of the property, he should not be dispossessed unless in due course of law and under such circumstances the interim injunction granted by the learned Lower Appellate Court against the true owner cannot be faulted with. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff the claim is not based on the fact that he is in possession of the property as a licensee or it was given to him being an employee of M/s G. H. R. Industries owned by late Shri Gajender Pal Singh as he was employed as Chowkidar there. The respondent/plaintiff claimed himself to be owner of the property firstly on the basis of an oral donation by late Shri Gajender Pal Singh and secondly claiming himself to be owner in adverse possession thereof. The application for interim injunction was required to be considered by the learned Lower Appellate Court in the light of facts pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff who had to stand on his own legs to prove the case set up by him. Merely the fact that the petitioners in their written statement stated that the respondent/plaintiff was given the possession of a room being a Chowkidar engaged by Late Shri Gajender Pal Singh owner of M/s GHR Industries, the vendor to the petitioners will not be of any help to him at this stage. The learned lower Appellate Court even finding that no document was produced by the respondent/plaintiff to show Civil Revision No. 1878 of 2008 (3) the gift or possession on the property, restrained the petitioners from dispossessing him unless in due course of law. This finding cannot be accepted considering the stand of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit filed by him. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the petitioners will not use any coercive steps to evict respondent no. 1 from the property in dispute upto February 28, 2009. 28.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge