IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.766 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.10.2009 Attar Singh .....Petitioner versus The Scheduled Caste Land Owning Society of village Deverad and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) [1] The petitioner-plaintiff impugns the order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, whereby his application for ad-interim injunction was dismissed, as well as the order dated 15.5.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind, allowing the petitioner's appeal in part to the extent that the respondent-defendants have been restrained from interfering into the petitioner's possession over 1½ Dabra land till the decision of the suit. [2] The petitioner's claim is that his father (late Sh.Jage Ram) was allotted two shares by the respondent-Society and each share is equivalent C.R. No.766 of 2009 (O&M) 2 to one bigha. In other words, the petitioner's claim is that his father having been allotted two bighas of land which is in his possession, he is entitled to protect his possession qua 2 bighas and not qua 1½ Dabra only. It may be noticed here that the expression 'Dabra' is not defined anywhere in the Revenue Laws and does not have any specific size. It is the local expression used for a smaller piece of land which are normally carved out for better irrigation only. [3] I have heard counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. [4] The questions, as to what was the size of the piece of land allotted by the respondent-Society or how many shares were allotted to the father of the petitioner and/or the total area in his possession, are seriously disputed questions of fact and would be gone into by the Civil Court only after the parties lead their respective evidence. It is too pre-mature to observe that one share of allotment is equivalent to one bigha or that the petitioner is entitled to retain more than 1½ Dabra of land. [5] At the same time, it would be in the interest of all concerned that the controversy be decided at the earliest. This can be done by the Civil Court only by granting limited opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence and by avoiding unnecessary adjournments. [6] The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the issues/questions referred to here-in-above shall be gone into by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. However, the proceedings would be expedited with an endeavour to decide the civil suit at the C.R. No.766 of 2009 (O&M) 3 earliest and preferably within one year. [7] Disposed of. [8] Dasti. 24-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE