Civil Revision No.4903 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4903 of 2008 Date of decision: September 12, 2008 Suleman …..PETITIONER Versus Hasandin and Others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Parminder Singh, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff- petitioner so as to restrain the defendants-respondents from interfering in his possession or dispossessing him from the suit land or alienating the suit land, was dismissed by learned trial Court and so also his appeal by learned lower appellate Court. He is now before this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner, as set up by him in the plaint, was that he was owner in possession of two shops, which he had constructed over a vacant plot. The suit property was situated in the A badi Deh. He was running Karyana business from both the shops. The defendants had no right or title in the suit property, but were bent upon to dispossess him. Even a couple of days before he filed the suit, an attempt was made by the defendants in the company of some bad elements, but their attempt was foiled due to intervention of the respectables of the village. He, accordingly, sought issuance of permanent injunction and in Civil Revision No.4903 of 2008 -2- the meantime, prayed for ad interim injunction. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2/respondents had pleaded that they had joined in the construction of the shops in dispute and they were also running business of Karyana jointly with the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff wanted to grab the shops and for that reason, he had filed the suit. They, however, denied that they made any attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. Defendant No.3/respondent, who was impleaded later on, took up the plea that he purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration from one Sina son of Maksood. Said Sina tried to interfere in his possession, which compelled him to file a suit wherein injunction was granted on 7.3.2006. In spite of the same, he was harassed by Sina aforementioned. Learned trial Court allowed police help on 15.6.2006 in his suit. Sina had filed a reply asserting that one Munshi was in actual and physical possession of the suit land. In order to harass him, Sina got filed a civil suit from said Munshi and in that suit no ad-interim injunction was granted. Even the present suit was nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court, which had been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in order to obtain an order of injunction. Defendant No.3 denied that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property. Defendant No.1 was a close relation of the plaintiff, whereas defendant No.2 a servant of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the petitioner, who was owner and in possession of the suit property, consisting of two shops where he was running business of Karyana. He has referred to Verification Certificate (Annexure P-3) issued by Civil Revision No.4903 of 2008 -3- Inspector, Legal Metrology, Karnal on 17.12.2005, vide which weights and measures kept by him in the shops were found to be in order. He has also relied upon report dated 24.9.2006 (Annexure P-5) prepared by ASI Mahabir Singh of Police Station, Gharaunda, wherein it was stated that in pursuance of the order passed by Civil Judge, Karnal said ASI visited the suit property on 24.9.2006 and found that Suleman-petitioner was in possession of the shops and not Rukmadeen-respondent No.3. The petitioner has not brought any material to substantiate his claim about ownership and possession over the suit property. As the suit property was situated within the Abadi Deh of the village, no revenue record could be there, but the petitioner could have made available some document from which his ownership and possession could be, prima facie, established. Instead, respondent No.3 has placed documents on the file from which it is clear that he purchased the property from Sina for sale consideration of Rs.32,000/-. When Sina had tried to interfere in his possession, he filed a civil suit in which injunction was granted on 7.3.2006. Respondent No.3 later on sought police help to protect his possession. Before the police could implement the injunction order, the plaintiff had filed the present suit and obtained an order of status quo and it was for that reason that no further action could be taken by the police. On the basis of material available on the file, learned lower Courts held that present suit had been filed by the petitioner in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 and 2/respondents, so as to create hurdle in the possession of defendant No.3/respondent. It was also rightly held that the balance of convenience was in favour of defendant No.3/respondent, Civil Revision No.4903 of 2008 -4- who had been able to convince the Court about his ownership as well as possession over the suit property. At the same time, the plaintiff- petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts so as to create hurdle in the ownership, as well as possession of defendant No.3/respondent. Learned lower appellate Court in para-16 of its order expressed its anguish that the true owner i.e defendant No.3/respondent was made to fight tooth and nail in order to assert his valuable right. The orders passed by learned lower Courts do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They are based on proper analysis of the facts available on the file. No ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Nothing stated above, shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 12, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE