Civil Revision No.6574 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6574 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : November 27, 2009 Sukhbir Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Jogdhian ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The plaintiff – petitioner Sukhbir Singh (herein referred as the `plaintiff') has preferred this petition against the order dated 7.10.2009, whereby, his appeal against the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, was dismissed and the application for temporary injunction was partly accepted and the defendant – respondent (herein referred as `the defendant') was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff qua Khasra No.29//8 and 13. However, no injunction was granted qua tube-well installed in Khasra No.26//22/1. Heard. Both the parties are co-sharers and the plaintiff is not in Civil Revision No.6574 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] exclusive possession of any Khasra Number, except Khasra No.29//8 and 13. As regards the tube-well, the plaintiff did not plead as to in which Khasra number the same is installed. He also did not give the details of the electric connection in dispute and as to where it was installed. He also did not plead, whether the tube-well was earlier in the name of his father and the defendant had got the said tube-well transferred in his name. The revenue records reveal that the tube-well stands installed in Khasra No.26//22/1, which is exclusively owned by the defendant. Therefore, the first Appellate Court was quite correct in forming the opinion against the plaintiff, in this regard. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. November 27, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE