C. R. No. 708 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 708 of 2007 Date of Decision : February 17, 2010 Jag Ram .... Petitioner Vs. Manphool and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. D. Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.1 Jag Ram has filed the instant revision petition having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent no.1 Manphool filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that he and his brother – respondent no.2 Duli Chand (proforma defendant no.2) are in peaceful possession of the suit land since the year 1986, but defendant no.1-petitioner Jag Ram wanted to interfere in their possession forcibly. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 from interfering in the possession of plaintiff and proforma defendant no.2 over the suit land and from dispossessing them therefrom. Temporary injunction to the same effect was also claimed during pendency of the suit by moving application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. R. No. 708 of 2007 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC). Defendant no.1 contended that he is owner in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff and proforma defendant no.2 never remained in possession thereof. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, vide order dated 04.08.2006, allowed application of respondent no.1 for temporary injunction and restrained defendant no.1 from dispossessing the plaintiff and proforma defendant no.2 (respondents herein) from the suit land except in due course of law till final decision of the suit. Appeal preferred by defendant no.1 against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide judgment dated 18.12.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by defendant no.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Revenue record reveals that plaintiff and proforma defendant no.2 are prima facie in possession of the suit land since 1985-86. Entry in jamabandi carries presumption of correctness. Defendant no.1 has not placed on record any material to depict that he is prima facie in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, entries in revenue record prima facie establish that plaintiff and proforma defendant no.2 are in possession of the suit land. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned orders of the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had filed application in the year 2003 before the Revenue Officer for correction of khasra girdawari. However, mere filing of said application for correction of khasra girdawari would not depict in any manner that the petitioner is prima facie in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, even the said application for correction of khasra girdawari was moved 17 years after entries were made in jamabandi and khasra C. R. No. 708 of 2007 3 girdawari depicting possession of plaintiff and proforma defendant no.2. The fact remains that prima facie there is no material on record to even remotely depict that defendant no.1 is prima facie in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, there is sufficient material in the form of revenue entries consistently for 20 years before the filing of the suit depicting possession of plaintiff and proforma defendant no.2 over the suit land. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. February 17, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE