Civil Revision No. 2327 of 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2327 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.1.2009 Harinder Singh ..... Petitioner vs Gurmail Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Y. S. Turka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Court below whereby that of the trial court was set aside in an application filed by the respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/ defendant from interfering in the possession of the suit property which according to them is in their possession since 1976-77 as tenants. The learned trial court opined that there was no material on record to show that the respondents are in possession of the property and ordered that status quo regarding possession be maintained. However, in appeal by the respondents, the learned Lower Appellate Court considering the fact that there are jamabandis on record from 1976-77 to 2001- 2002 and khasra girdawaris from the year 1995 to 2005 showing the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest in possession of the suit property as tenants, and also the fact that there is nothing on record to show as to when the tenancy was terminated during this period and possession was delivered to the petitioner/defendant, restrained the petitioner from dispossessing the plaintiffs/respondents from the suit property. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land vide sale deed dated 9.7.1993 from the original owner and on the basis thereof the mutation was sanctioned. As the khasra girdawaris had not been recorded properly, application for correction was made in the year 1998. Vide order dated 26.5.1999, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade ordered for correction in the khasra girdawaris. However, in appeal by the respondents, the order dated Civil Revision No. 2327 of 2007 (2) 26.5.1999 was set aside and the Collector held that application for correction of khasra girdawaris is not maintainable as the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act would be applicable. The order was further upheld in revision by the Commissioner. He further submitted that in the suit filed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed a counter-claim seeking correction of the khasra girdawaris. He further submitted that the possession was delivered to the petitioner in the year 1993 after the same was purchased by him and since then he was in possession of the suit land and the respondents had managed the entry in the revenue record of these years showing themselves to be tenants of the property, which is totally incorrect. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is nothing on record to prima facie prove the possession of the petitioner on the property in dispute. The revenue record clearly establishes that since 1976-77 the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest are continuing in possession of the property as tenants. No document has been produced on record to show as to when the tenancy was terminated and possession was delivered by the owner/landlord. In the absence thereof, the case set up by the respondents was prima facie made out for grant of interim injunction in their favour. Under the garb of status quo passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner wanted to dispossess the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. The claim set up by the petitioner is that he had purchased the land on 9.7.1993 and on the basis thereof the possession was delivered to him at that time by the owner/vendor. However, even the jamabandis for the period prior to the year 1992 show that the respondents were in possession of the property. Immediately, thereafter also in the next jamabandi for the year 1996-97, the respondents were shown in possession of the property as tenants. For the first time, the petitioner made application for correction of khasra girdawaris in the year 1998 which was initially accepted on 26.5.1999 by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. However, the order was set aside by the Collector opining the application filed by the petitioner to be not maintainable. As the petitioner could move under the Punjab Tenancy Act. This order passed by the Collector was upheld in revision by the Commissioner. Even after the purchase of land, the petitioner remained silent though he is quite vigilant about the correction of the revenue record but still in the jamabandis for the year 1996-97 and also the khasra girdawari for the year 1995 to 2005, the respondents are shown to be in possession of the property as tenants. However, there is nothing on record to show as to in what manner the tenancy of Civil Revision No. 2327 of 2007 (3) the respondents was terminated and the possession was delivered back to the owners/landlords. The aforesaid material, in my opinion, is, prima facie, sufficient on the basis of which case is made out for grant of interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. Nothing said hereinabove would adversely affect the rights of the parties in the pending litigation before the court below which shall be decided on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. The petition is disposed of. 22.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. Mr. Y. S. Turka, Advocate, for the petitioner. On the error pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, notice was issued to counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that the petition on that date was dismissed. However, due to typographical error in the last three lines of last para of order dated 22.1.2009, it was mentioned as “... interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.” The same shall stand replaced with the following lines:- “...interim injunction in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.” The order passed today shall form part of the order passed in the revision petition on 22.1.2009. 18.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge