Civil Revision No. 5889 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 5889 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:- 14.9.2010 Kamla & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus Sood Sabha, Shaikpur & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. The petitioners/defendants Kamla, Ram Murti @ Cheena and Balwinder Kumar, being the legal representatives of Prem Lal, have preferred this revision under Section 115 C.P.C against the order dated 22.7.2010, passed by Additional District Judge, Kapurthala confirming the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge Sr. Division, Kapurthala. The suit was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff – Sood Sabha, through its President Sree Nath Sood, plaintiff No.2 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and the representatives from demolishing the old construction of the Dharamshala/Mandir and the property attached thereto situated in area of 14 Marlas as per Abadi No. 212, 3 Marlas of Khasra No. 213 of the Bandobast of 1934 B.K and from interfering in the possession of this Sabha and further restraining them from interfering in the religious ceremonies being performed by it and from Civil Revision No. 5889 of 2010 (O&M) -2- raising new construction and making alteration/changes in the property in the suit. An application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C for the grant of ad-interim relief to that effect, in which the above said order was passed. According to the plaintiffs, Prem Lal was the Pujari of the Mandir, who was tried for the offence under Section 376 IPC and was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge Kupurthala. After he was so sentenced his family members came into possession of the premises in dispute and they were allowed to take shelter by taking sympathetic view. Taking undue advantage they are trying to convert the old structure of the Dharamshala/Mandir into a house. The claim of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants/petitioners and it was pleaded that no person was competent to give any such land to the Sood Biradari out of Shamlat Mohalat Soodan, Sheikhpur for the construction of Dharamshala. There was only one room in this property which was allotted to Prem Lal. After going through the records and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned trial Court accepted that application and restrained the defendants from interfering in the religious ceremonies being performed by the plaintiff and from raising any new construction and making structural changes in the existing property. An appeal was preferred against that order by the defendants, but finding no merit therein the same was dismissed by the first appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the defendants are coming in possession of the Civil Revision No. 5889 of 2010 (O&M) -3- property in dispute in their own right and are performing the functions of the Pujari. The plaintiff-Sabha came into existence recently. In fact the same was created in order to grab this property. Though there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs, yet ad-interim injunction was granted in their favour; which amounts to the commission of illegality by the trial Court and appellate Court. A perusal of the order of trial Court shows that number of documents were filed by the plaintiffs in support of the contentions made in the application; which consists of the copies of the site plan of the Bandobast of 1934, judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, Memorandum of Rules and Regulations of the Plaintiff-Sabha and Registration certificate. It was on the basis of those documents that the trial Court found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs for the grant of ad- interim injunction. Learned counsel for the defendants has failed to refer any such document on the basis of which it can be said that the findings recorded by the trial Court, which were subsequently affirmed by the appellate Court, are patently incorrect or that the trial Court committed any such illegality by granting that ad-interim injunction. No ground is made out for interfering in the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. September 14, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge