Civil Revision No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.7.2009 Major Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Bachittar Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Toor, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Bachittar Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit property. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala in para 2 of the impugned order, are as under:- “Succinctly the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that initially plaintiff Bachittar Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession over land measuring 11 kanal 4 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff along with other Civil Revision No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) 2 co-sharer is owner in possession of the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03. Defendants have no concern with the said land and now defendant without any right are trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Plaintiff had requested the defendant not to interfere in his possession but on 28.9.2006 defendants refused to accept their request.” Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code ('CPC' for short) was also filed. The said application was allowed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala vide order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, petitioners Major Singh and Jaggar Singh preferred an appeal. Vide order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure P-2), learned Additional District Judge, Barnala has dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Khasra numbers in dispute are 825 (3-12) and 826 (7-12) situated at village Badra, Tehsil Barnala. It has been noticed by both the Courts below that as per the latest jamabandis placed on record, plaintiff Bachittar Singh and his brother Bikkar Singh are Civil Revision No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) 3 shown to be in possession of the suit property. There was no entry in the revenue record regarding exchange of the khasra numbers. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi. Although the said entries are rebuttable but at this stage prima facie, plaintiff-respondent is shown to be in possession of the suit property. The petitioners placed reliance on a writing dated 14.11.1970. Learned Additional District Judge, Barnala has observed that a reading of the document reveals that it created rights for the first time and therefore, the document required registration but the same was undisputedly not a registered document. It has further been observed that the document was not signed by the predecessors of the petitioners/defendants, who were owners of the land qua which writing was alleged to have been executed. At this stage, the Courts below were only required to see as to whether there was a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and whether the non issuance of injunction caused irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The Courts below rightly found that all the said conditions were satisfied in this case in favour of the plaintiff. Since the latest jamabandis reflected possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, plaintiff had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. In case the plaintiff is dis-possessed from the suit property during the pendency of the suit, he would suffer an irreparable loss. Civil Revision No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Hence, no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 02, 2009 anita