IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1940 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.10.2009 Bakshish Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dilraj Singh Sandhwalia and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.25541-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1940 of 2009 As per the averments, the petitioner is claiming title over the suit land on the basis of a compromise decree dated 5.12.2001 passed in RSA No.2707 of 2001. Kashmir Singh-respondent No.3 filed a suit for declaring the compromise between the petitioner and LRs of Anwar in RSA No.2707 of 2001 as null and void and claimed title over the property in dispute on the basis of a sale deed dated 31.7.1989 in his favour. Along with the aforesaid suit, he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the petitioner from interfering in his possession. Trial Court vide order dated 14.6.2003 granted interim stay in favour of Kashmir Singh- respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that despite order dated 25.7.2008 passed in CR No.330 of 2004 whereby operation of the impugned order dated 14.6.2003 passed in a civil suit filed by Kashmir Singh against the petitioner restraining him from dispossessing forcibly was stayed, yet the respondents have violated the aforesaid order by COCP No.1940 of 2009 (O&M) -2- changing the entries in the revenue record with regard to the land in question. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Order dated 25.7.2008 has been passed in CR No.330 of 2004 which has arisen out of an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a subsequent suit filed by respondent No.3 against the petitioner. Therein, respondent No.3 had sought injunction against the petitioner from interfering in his possession over the suit land and dispossessing him forcibly. The trial Court vide its order dated 14.6.2003 passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has restrained the petitioner from interfering in the possession of Kashmir Singh-respondent over the said land. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed. However, in CR No.330 of 2004 vide order dated 25.7.2008, operation of the impugned order was stayed meaning thereby the order dated 14.6.2003 was rendered as non est. The net effect of the order dated 25.7.2008 is that now there is no injunction order against the petitioner from interfering in the possession of Kashmir Singh over the said land. The grievance of the petitioner regarding illegal change of entries in the revenue records by the said respondent is a separate matter, for redressal of which, remedy lies elsewhere. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to establish even prima facie as to how there is any violation of the order dated 25.7.2008. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner that the order passed by this Court in CR No.330 of 2004 has been violated, is without any merit. Dismissed. October 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE