IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 434 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.3.2009 Balbir Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Ranjeet Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Court below whereby in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff his possession on the land in dispute has been directed to be protected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on an application filed by the petitioners for correction of Khasra Girdawari since Kharif 2002 till date the Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated January 4, 2008, has directed the same to be corrected in favour of the petitioners to the extent of 2/3rd share. The order has attained finality as no appeal has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff against that order. In view of that order once the petitioners are held to be in possession of the property in dispute as co-sharers, the interim injunction granted by the learned Court below restraining the petitioners from dis- possessing the respondent/plaintiff from the land in dispute deserves to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The suit was filed on September 20, 2007. The order which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioners claiming possession on the suit property came to be passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade in an application filed by the petitioners on October 3, 2007, after the filing of the suit. Otherwise on record before the Court below was the revenue record showing the respondent/plaintiff to be in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. As the order which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioners came into existence on an application filed by the petitioners during the pendency of suit, the same cannot be relied upon as such for the purpose of passing of interim injunction. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 16.3.2009 JUDGE Reema