Civil Revision No.3525 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3525 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:24.05.2010 Balbir & ors. .... petitioners Versus Ramdia .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Harish Bhardwaj,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the courts below, whereby on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondent, petitioners have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit land till the decision of the suit. As per the averments made in this petition, case of the plaintiff-respondent is that he is owner in possession of ½ share of the suit property where he has cultivated several fruit trees. Petitioner No.1 is his real son and petitioners No.2 to 4 are the grandsons. They are residing separately since time of marriage of respondent No.1 and have no concern with the suit land. However, they were adamant to interfere in his peaceful possession over the suit land. On 22.10.2009 they made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land but could not succeed due to timely intervention of the plaintiff and his neighbours. Hence the present Civil Revision No.3525 of 2010(O & M) 2 suit for permanent injunction was filed. Along with the suit, application for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering into his peaceful possession was filed. In reply, the appellants raised various objections and submitted that petitioner No.1 along with his brother Pala Ram had purchased the suit property in the name of the respondent and they were in possession of specific portions of the suit land and the plaintiff- respondent had no concern with the suit property which stood already partitioned between petitioner No.1 and his brother Pala Ram. It was further pleaded that petitioner No.1 had constructed his house and had also planted trees in his portion and the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession and thus the application as well as suit was liable to be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the courts below allowed the application and restrained the petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession over the suit land till the decision of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court that the plaintiff-respondent had admitted construction over the suit land which is being used for residential purpose which fortifies the stand taken by the petitioners and once the court had come to the conclusion that there was dispute regarding the possession over the suit property, the trial Court should have ordered the status quo only, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the contents of the averments made in the revision petition and the documents attached with it. In the present case, plaintiff-respondent alleged himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land and has placed on record copy Civil Revision No.3525 of 2010(O & M) 3 of the Jamabandi for the year 2006-07, wherein he has been shown owner in possession of the suit property. Presumption of truth is attached to these entries. There is nothing on record to rebut the aforesaid entries in the jamabandi. The petitioners have taken a stand that since the date of purchase, they are in possession of specific portion in equal shares of the suit land. However, there is no revenue record showing their possession over the suit property. The plea of the petitioners that the suit land was purchased by them Benami in the name of the plaintiff-respondent, is without any merit, being inconsistent to the provisions of Benami Transactions(Prohibition) Act, 1988. Section 4(2) thereof lays down that no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be real owner of such property. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the plea as aforesaid cannot be raised. Otherwise also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Pardeep versus ITC Limited 2002(3) RCR(Civil) 638 that grant of interim injunction is a matter of discretion of the court and if the courts below on consideration have passed the order, the appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the same. Similar view was taken by this Court in Charan Dass versus M.C.Samana & anr.1989 PLJ 160. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to interfere in the discretionary relief granted by the courts below during the pendency of this appeal. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 24.05.2010 neenu