Civil Revision No. 6963 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6963 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.12. 2009 Ramesh Sharma ......petitioners Versus Birender Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Ramesh Sharma filed a suit for permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. Along with the suit, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide the impugned orders, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff. Civil Revision No. 6963 of 2009 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he is a tenant over the shop in dispute. Admittedly, it is a case of oral tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is also no receipt regarding payment of rent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Admittedly, at the present moment, the shop in question is not in existence and the disputed area is a plot. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that even if some injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff, the same would not serve any purpose as the shop which was allegedly given on rent to the plaintiff is not in existence at the spot. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 10, 2009 anita