IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1502 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 12.03.2008 Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sanjay Nagpal, Advocate vs. Bhupinder Singh and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha whereby upon an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the petitioner-plaintiff, the respondents-defendants have been restrained from dispossessing him from the suit property as per the details given in headnote of the plaint, except in due course of law. Similarly, the petitioner-plaintiff has also been restrained from dispossessing the respondent-defendants from another piece of land, the description of which is given in the impugned order. The petitioner is also aggrieved at the order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby his appeal against the above-mentioned order of the learned trial Court has been dismissed though with a slight modification in respect of khasra numbers. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of the documentary C.R. No.1502 of 2008 -2- evidence including the revenue records i.e. Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi have formed a prima facie view with regard to actual physical possession of the parties on different Khasra numbers, though apparently they are co-sharers but in exclusive possession of different Khasra numbers. In these circumstances the recourse adopted by the Courts below to restrain both the parties against interfering in their respective possession till the suit is decided, appears to be the only effective mode to prevent the parties from breaking each other's head. No interference in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, is called for. Dismissed. The learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial proceedings expeditiously. March 12, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE