IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5458 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7th September, 2011 Ajay Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus Balwant Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21st April, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal and the order dated 6th June, 2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby order (Annexure P-1) was affirmed. The respondent had instituted a suit for permanent injunction stating therein that he is owner in possession of the agricultural land total measuring 17 Kanals 6 Marlas to the extent of 186/346 share of the suit land, detail and description whereof was given in the plaint. The respondent-plaintiff had stated that he had purchased the property vide a registered sale deed dated 22nd July, 2005 and he was put in possession of the suit land. Whereas, the petitioner- defendant raised a plea that after registration of the sale deed Civil Revision No.5458 of 2011 (O&M) respondent-plaintiff became his co-sharer and they had instituted partition proceedings. As per the partition proceedings, respondent- plaintiff was put in possession of some other portion of the entire land. The trial Court, considering the fact that the orders passed in partition proceedings were ex-parte, had granted injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff taking into account that as per the sale deed he is in possession of a specific portion of the land. This finding has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court further held that it was within the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant that the respondent-plaintiff was a resident of Delhi, whereas Muniadi was carried in his village. I have perused the orders passed by both the courts below. They suffer from no infirmity. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 7, 2011 rps 2