C.R. No.6078 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYRNA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6078 of 2004 Date of Decision:- 17.10.2006 Raj Singh ....Petitioner through Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate vs. Subhash Chand ....Respondent through Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT *** SURYA KANT, J. [1] This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 27.8.2002 and 19.10.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court respectively, dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC. [2] The petitioner has filed a suit for permanent and temporary injunction alleging, inter alia, that he is in possession of the subject property as a tenant pursuant to the rent note dated 10.9.1995 executed in his favour by one of the co-sharers, namely, Bharat Singh (since deceased), whereby the co-landlord has rented out his share in the subject land for a period of 10 years on payment of lump-sum rent of Rs.7200/-. He also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC which has, however, been dismissed by both the Courts. [3] While declining the ad interim injunction, the Courts below have observed that:- (i)the rent note dated 10.9.1995 though pertains to a lease of C.R. No.6078 of 2004 2 more than 11 months i.e. for a period of 10 years, it is, however, unregistered; (ii)it cannot be believed that deceased Bharat Singh would have rented out his share of the land a paltry sum of for Rs.60/- per month when the land is of commercial potentiality; (iii)except the alleged rent-note, there is no other evidence like entries in the revenue record, electricity meter or any thing else to indicate that the petitioner has ever been in possession of the subject land; (iv)wife of the deceased Bharat Singh, namely, Smt.Nirmala Devi has filed an affidavit that her husband never rented out the subject property to the petitioner; (v)the signatures of deceased Bharat Singh on the rent note dated 10.9.1995 have been found forged allegedly by a hand- writing expert; (vi)the petitioner himself got appointed a Local Commissioner who was to report regarding existing position at the suit property but he did not deposit the fee of the Local Commissioner due to which the latter did not visit the site, therefore, prima facie adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner; (vii)the signatures of deceased Bharat Singh have been found to be forged in the FSL report dated 18.8.2003 also which was obtained pursuant to FIR No.82 dated 7.6.2002 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Ateli on a complaint made by Smt.Nirmala C.R. No.6078 of 2004 3 Devi widow of Bharat Singh; and (viii)As per the affidavit of Smt.Nirmala Devi, the possession has been delivered to the respondent-defendant to whom apart from her, some other co-sharers have also sold their respective shares by way of registered sale deeds. [4] Aggrieved, the plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court. [5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the impugned orders. [6] It is too early to discard and turn-down the petitioner's contention regarding genuineness of the rent note dated 10.9.1995 at this stage and it will be open for both the parties to lead their respective evidence and to prove as to whether or not the signatures of deceased Bharat Singh on the said rent note are genuine. However, keeping in view the prima facie findings returned by the Courts below, namely, that the rent note is unregistered and there is no other document to show that the petitioner has ever been in possession of the subject land, it is quite difficult to believe that the petitioner would have paid advance rent for 10 years without proper documentation, and also having regard to the scope of interference by a revisional Court in such like ad interim injunction matters, I am of the considered view that no case to grant any ad interim injunction is made out by the petitioner. [7] Consequently and for the reasons above-stated, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the proceedings and to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably on or before 31.7.2007. Needless to say that the observations made in this order C.R. No.6078 of 2004 4 or by the Courts below are tentative only and shall have no bearing on merits of the suit. October 17, 2006 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE