IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2397/2009 Date of Decision: 30.4.2009. Dayaram ..........Petitioner. Versus Ramesh Chand ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. J.S.Hooda,Advocate for the petitioner-defendant JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner-defendant by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the orders dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Palwal, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and the petitioner-defendant was restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff and further restraining the petitioner- defendant from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from the suit land. Further, challenge is also laid to the order dated 17.1.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, affirming in appeal the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the learned Trial Court. Heard learned counsel and perused the record. It is apparent from the record that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be in cultivating possession of the suit land for the last 50 years as Dholidar through Bhoop Singh under the ownership of Gram Panchayat. Prayer made was for restraining the defendant from interfering in CR NO.2397/2009 2 his peaceful possession. Alongwith the suit he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On the other hand, petitioner-defendant claimed to be in possession by virtue of the suit land having been willed to him by said Bhoop Singh-tenant at Will. The learned Trial Court after examining the jamabandis placed on record by the respondent-plaintiff found that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and accordingly injunction was granted in his favour. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court by passing a detailed and well reasoned order. A perusal of the same reveals that in para 7 of the said order learned Appellate Court has recorded sufficient reasons for dismissing the appeal. Learned appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the learned trial court that the entries in the revenue record clearly show that the plaintiff is in possession as a Dholidar through Bhoop Singh and thus, prima facie possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was duly proved on record. I find no illegality therein warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. No merit. Dismissed. However, nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 30.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge