C.R.No.6637 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6637 of 2011 Date of Decision: 1.11.2011 Charanjit Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Mohan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Pardeep Singh Mirpur, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, defendant No.1-petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned judgment dated 2.6.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby an appeal filed by her against the order dated 13.4.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sunam allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed Civil Suit No.66/4.3.2011 for permanent injunction against the defendant/petitioner and proforma respondent No.2 herein to restrain them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the agricultural land measuring 18 kanal 3 marla as described in the head note of the plaint. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Upon notice, the same was opposed. After hearing both the sides, the said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated C.R.No.6637 of 2011 #2# 13.4.2011 and restrained the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and dispossessing him from the suit property till disposal of the suit. On an appeal having been filed, the same was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 2.6.2011, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that both the courts below have gravely erred while granting interim injunction in favour of respondent No.1 as he has no concern with the suit property. He is neither a co-sharer nor in possession of the suit property rather he has sold his entire share and delivered the possession to his vendees. It is further argued that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property as defendant No.1-petitioner purchased the land from Kulwant Kaur-one of the co-sharers and mutation has already been sanctioned in her favour whereas defendant No.2-proforma respondent No.2 is already a co-sharer and in possession of the suit property. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. The learned trial Court has found that defendant No.1 has purchased exclusive khasra number by way of sale deed dated 27.12.2010 but her vendor was not in exclusive possession of said khasra numbers rather the same are in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. The total land is measuring 102 kanal and 5 marla out of which the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is having 1/3rd share. Although, C.R.No.6637 of 2011 #3# the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has alienated the land measuring 16 kanal, 5 marla but the trial Court has found that still he is in exclusive possession of the suit land. The learned trial Court has also observed as under: “Though, defendant No.1 has purchased exclusive khasra numbers by way of the sale deed dated 27.12.2010, but vendor of defendant No.1 was not in exclusive possession of the said khasra numbers, rather the same are in exclusive possession of the plaintiff.” Even if the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is in possession of the land in excess of his share, still he cannot be dispossessed from the said property by way of illegal or coercive method but except in due course of law. Both the courts have found that all the ingredients of temporary injunction are made out as the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is in possession of the land in dispute and as such the prima facie case is made out in his favour and in case he is dispossessed except in due course of law, he will certainly suffer an irreparable loss and injury, which would not be compensated in any way. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity worth interference in the impugned order/judgment passed by both the courts below while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. November 01, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE C.R.No.6637 of 2011 #4#