CR No.7416 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7416 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.12.2009 Kaka Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. Ranjit Singh and another ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 7.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar who has set aside the order dated 26.7.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Ropar of status quo with regard to title and possession in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction in order to restrain the defendants/respondents from interfering and dispossessing him from the land measuring 16 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.121/133 bearing Khasra Nos.3/23(1-4), 16/1(3-16), 2/1(3-16), 4/1(3-12) situated in village Datarpur, H.B.No.258 Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib District Ropar. The learned trial Court passed the order of status quo with regard to title and possession on the ground that Assistant Collector Grade-II, Morinda vide his order dated 25.4.2008 found, on the basis of inspection on the spot and statements of witnesses, the plaintiff in possession of the suit land. However, learned lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the CR No.7416 of 2009 -2- trial Court on the ground that defendants are admittedly the owners whereas the plaintiff is trespasser, therefore, relying upon decision in the cases of Sukhwant Singh Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and another 2009(3) PLR 432 and Mangat Ram Vs. Union of India 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 97 held that injunction cannot be granted in favour of trespasser and against the true owner. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to a contrary precedent to say that a trespasser could maintain the suit and claim injunction against a true owner. Hence, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by learned lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendants/respondents has been allowed and the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for temporary injunction has been dismissed. As such, the present revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 15.12.2009 Judge Meenu