C.R.No.374 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.374 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 16, 2011 Sukhdev Singh and others .......Petitioners Versus Gram Panchayat village Bopa Rai Khurd & ors. .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.GS Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. <><><> RAM CHAND GUPTA,J. (Oral) CM No.1484-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.374 of 2011 The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.5.2010 (Annexure P3), passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar and order dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala vide which application for ad interim injunction order filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner-plaintiff , was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order, passed by learned trial Court. C.R.No.374 of 2011 -2- Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff on the plea that the suit land is owned by Jumla Mustraka Malkan and the plaintiff was owner in possession as co-sharer in Jumla Mustraka Malkan. On the other hand, the case of defendant-Gram Panchayat is that the land is owned and possessed by Gram Panchayat and the same used to be given on lease on year to year basis and that even plaintiffs have taken the land in dispute on lease from the Gram Panchayat by paying the lease money. Plea has also been taken that the petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act has also been filed by the respondent-Gram Panchayat against the petitioner seeking possession. Hence, in view of the aforesaid position when petition under Section 7 of the Act has already been filed by the Gram Panchayat against the plaintiffs for their ejectment, it cannot be said that the respondents intend to forcibly eject the petitioner from the land in dispute. Rather legal procedure has been initiated against the present petitioner-plaintiffs. Hence, learned Courts below have rightly come to conclusion that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the petitioner-plaintiffs. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby in passing the impugned orders by Courts below warranting interference by this Court Thus, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be C.R.No.374 of 2011 -3- construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 16, 2011 JUDGE SRM