IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.7220 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.1.2009. Surender ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Uma Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The present petition has been filed by the defendant No.1 against the order passed by the Courts below whereby in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for stay, he has been restrained from interfering in possession of the respondent No.1/plaintiff over the suit land or demolishing the same in any manner till the decision of the case. The stand of the petitioner is that infact he is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 12 years. The possession is hostile to knowledge of general public and also to the knowledge of the owners of the property. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has purchased the property from Om Parkash who according to the petitioner was not owner thereof. It was further submitted that the property in dispute was being used by him as a nora. Both the Courts below did not find any merit in the submission made by the petitioner. As far as validity of the sale deed is concerned, the same C.R. No.7220 of 2008 (O&M) -2- is yet to be gone into after the parties lead their evidence. Local Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report stating that it is the gate of the house of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, which opened towards the plot in dispute and no gate of the house of the petitioner/defendant was opening towards plot in dispute. At this stage of consideration of prayer for interim stay, the Court has to see the prima-facie case and the balance of convenience. In the present case, the respondent No.1/ plaintiff has made out prima-facie case on the basis of a registered sale deed the challenge thereto by the petitioner claiming that to be fictitious is yet to be gone into by the Courts below. As against this there is no document on record to show possession of the petitioner on the property in dispute. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present case and the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 6.1.2009 JUDGE Reema