Civil Revision No. 5099 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5099 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.08.2010 Jaswinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Nishan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2010 passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the application moved by plaintiff/respondent No.1, restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, stands allowed. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/petitioner from interfering in possession of plaintiff/respondent No.1 by claiming, that he was in possession of the property for more than 25 years, and was in long settled cultivating possession. It was also the case of the plaintiff, that the defendants/petitioner, were high handed and influential persons, and they wanted to forcibly evict the plaintiff from the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioner on the plea that no injunction could be granted against the defendants, as they are the owners of the property. The property was purchased by wife of the Civil Revision No. 5099 of 2010 (O&M) -2- petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 17.11.2008. The learned lower appellate Court keeping in view the documents on record, specially the revenue record, came to the conclusion, that plaintiff/respondent No.1 was in settled possession, and restrained the defendants/petitioner from interfering in possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, during the pendency of the suit. The order passed by the learned lower appellate Court has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending, that no injunction could be granted against the true owner, and in any case in pursuance of the sale deed executed in favour of the wife of the petitioner, she was given possession of the property, therefore, no reliance on revenue record could be placed. On the last date of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record any authority given by the wife to the petitioner, to take possession or cultivate the land. The order passed on 16.8.2010 reads as under: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to place on record the documents showing the authority given by wife of the petitioner for the possession of the property purchased. On request, adjourned to 24.8.2010.” The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place on record any authority of the wife, which could entitle the petitioner, to take possession of the land or to cultivate it. The petitioner is not the owner of the property to interfere in the possession, by claiming it to be under the ownership of his wife, in absence of any authority. The true owner has not come to Court to prove that the possession was given to her. Civil Revision No. 5099 of 2010 (O&M) -3- It is the wife of petitioner who could take remedies in accordance with law. The petitioner certainly could not interfere in possession of plaintiff, by claiming to be husband of true owner. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 24, 2010 R.S.