IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 619 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 2, 2011. Sisha Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Mohinder Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Jatinderjit Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.5 ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 15.11.2010, Annexure P2 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala and for restoring order dated 04.08.2010, Anenxure P1 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kapurthala. CR No.619 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering or taking forcible possession of land in dispute, duly described in the headnote of the plaint, in an illegal manner. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was also filed alongwith the suit for restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute and from interfering therein forcibly and illegally during the pendency of the suit. The suit as well as application for ad interim injunction order were opposed by the respondents-defendants. The application was allowed by learned trial Court and the respondents-defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from Khasra No.34//17/2(3-11) out of the suit land forcibly and illegally except in due course of law till the disposal of the case. On appeal filed by one of the respondents-defendants, Mohinder Kumar, the said order was modified by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala to the extent that parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the possession over the property in dispute. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that as per the entries in revenue record, petitioner has been shown to be in possession over the property in dispute and that in the garb of order of status quo qua possession passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, respondents-defendants are threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the land in dispute, who is an old person of 70 years of age. 2 CR No.619 of 2011 Law is well settled that at this stage prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact that as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents-plaintiffs if ad-interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. In the present case, prima facie, petitioner-plaintiff is shown to be the owner in possession of the property in dispute as per entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. Entries of Jamabandi are having presumption of truth. No evidence has been produced by respondents-defendants to show that prima facie they are in exclusive possession over the portion of the property in dispute. Learned trial Court has passed the order restraining respondents- defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute forcibly and illegally except in due course of law, which was modified by learned first appellate Court. In view of these facts, illegally and material irregularity has been committed by learned first appellate Court in modifying the ad interim injunction order passed in this case by learned trial Court without assigning any sufficient reason. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court is set aside and the order passed by learned trial Court is restored. However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) May 2, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3