Civil Revision No. 5132 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5132 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.8.2011 Surjit Kaur …Petitioner Versus Vikash Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.5.2011, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, and the order dated 26.5.2011, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the respondent/plaintiff, was accepted and ad interim injunction was granted in his favour and the petitioner/defendant was restrained from dispossessing the respondent/plaintiff forcibly from the suit property and illegally except in due course of law. The respondent/plaintiff had set out a case that he was inducted in the demised premises as a tenant in the year 2002 at a monthly rent of ` 1,000. He was running a Chemist shop in the demised Civil Revision No. 5132 of 2011 2 premises and had also applied for a license from the concerned authorities. From the demised premises, a Chemist Shop under the name and style of M/s Ganpati Medicos was being run by the plaintiff/respondent. Furthermore, it was averred that the plaintiff was an income-tax assessee and has been filing income-tax returns. There is a telephone connection in his name. Along with the plaint, photographs of the suit property were also annexed. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement wherein she stated that the property infact belongs to Bant Singh, who is a brother of her husband Mukhtiar Singh and she is in possession of the suit property. The trial Court, taking into consideration the photographs, medical bills, documents for applying the license, deposit of bills, telephone bills etc., came to conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the shop and gave a finding that he was in possession over the demised premises. The finding, returned by the trial Court, has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 25, 2011 “DK”