CR No. 2407 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 2407 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2010 State of Punjab and others ....Petitioners Versus Indira ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.K. Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the petitioners. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Petitioners – State has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the Appellate Court has allowed the appeal as well as application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and issued injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants – petitioners restraining the defendants – petitioners from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff – respondent has instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and an application CR No. 2407 of 2010 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also moved in the suit. Main contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute. She has purchased the property from the rightful owner and a residential house is standing there on. It has further been averred by the plaintiff that house tax, water charges, electricity charges and sewerage charges are being paid by the plaintiff. Defendants – petitioners contested the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as well as the suit on the ground that the property was gifted in favour of the State by the rightful owner. The trial Court dismissed the injunction application moved by the plaintiff – respondent vide order dated 26.5.2007. Feeling aggrieved from the dismissal of the injunction application, plaintiff – respondent herein filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was allowed by the impugned judgement. The Appellate Court while allowing the appeal has recorded prima-facie finding that from the material available on record, plaintiff seems to be owner of the property. It was further observed by the Appellate Court that plaintiff is in possession and has been paying water, sewerage and electricity charges. It has been further observed by the Appellate Court that the genuineness of the title deed has to be seen during the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the property belongs to the State since it was gifted to the State by the then owner of the property. Hence, injunction was wrongly issued against the true owner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that a person in long possession of CR No. 2407 of 2010 3 the property, cannot be dispossessed force-fully without adopting due process of law. Since the Appellate Court has found prima-facie title of the plaintiff, hence injunction was rightly issued. No jurisdictional error is pointed out. Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any finding recorded by the Appellate Court shall not come into the way of the trial Court while deciding the suit on merits. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 20.07.2010 sk.