CR No.5073 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.5073 of 2009 Decided on: 05.09.2009 **** Dharam Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Prem Singh & Others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the defendant against the order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat whereby on an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction, the petitioner has been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, as well as against the order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat affirming the aforesaid order. The dispute pertains to possessory rights over land measuring 1 kanal – 8 marla situated in the revenue estate of the village Passina Kalan, Sub Tehsil Bapoli, District Panipat. The petitioner claims to be in continuous possession on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell dated 5th October, 1981 executed by the previous owner of the property Bhunda s/o Ami Lal in favour of the father of the petitioner-defendant. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiffs are asserting their possession on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 5th December, 1995. The Courts, below have observed that the alleged agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner is an un-registered document. After referring to the entries in the CR No.5073 of 2009 - 2 - revenue record and taking notice of the fact that there is no plausible explanation by the petitioner-defendant as to why no suit for specific performance was filed against the original owner on the basis of the alleged agreement to sell dated 05.10.1981, that the courts below have restrained the petitioner-defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondents. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bal Krishan vs. Satyaparkash and others (2001) 2 SCC 498 and Shrimant Sharmrao Suryavanshi and another vs. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by LRs and others, (2002) 3 SCC 676. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that the Courts below have completely overlooked the legislative intent behind Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 114(d) of the Evidence Act. It is argued that at one point of time the possession of the suit land having been delivered to his predecessor, there is a presumption of continued possession, moreso when the respondent-plaintiffs have not been able to show as to how and when they dispossessed the petitioner-defendant or they themselves came into possession of the suit property. Having given careful consideration, I do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. A revisional Court has very limited scope to interfere with the ad interim injunction orders passed by the Courts below unless a case of exceeding the jurisdiction or perversity is made out. In the instant case, the respondent-plaintiffs are asserting their title on the basis of a registered sale deed executed way back in the year 1995. Both the Courts below have restored to the specific entries in khasra girdawaries for the period 27.10.2004 to 24.09.2005 as well as Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 wherein the respondent- plaintiffs are recorded in cultivating possession of the suit land. The petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon an order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the Sub Division Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Samalkha regarding correction of entries in khasra girdawaries of the suit land. Suffice it to observe that the above stated order has been passed by the Collector much after the filing of the suit by the respondent-plaintiffs on 16.09.2004. The CR No.5073 of 2009 - 3 - said order appears to have been passed a few days before the petitioner-defendant preferred his appeal on 19.08.2008. In these circumstances, the view taken by both the Courts below being one of the plausible views, warrants no interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.09.2009 shonkar