IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.366 of 2007 Date of Decision: 08.10.2010 Gram Panchayat Village Gaddodu ........Petitioner Versus Fauja Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(Oral) Parties have chosen not to appear. This revision is directed against the order dated 06.12.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the order of the trial Court dated 09.05.2006 granting the status quo has been modified into and injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering in the possession of the appellant-plaintiff over the land measuring 17 marlas, comprised of khewat No.71, Khatauni No.214 and Rect. No.12, Killa No.13/2 (0-2), 13/3(0-15) situated in the revenue estate of Village Gaddodu, Tehsil and District Ferozepur and also interfering into the running of the Tubewell. The plaintiff-respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur and simultaneously applied for an injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ferozepur while considering the revenue entries and the claim of the parties, ordered maintenance of status quo. Aggrieved of the same, plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur. The appellate Court vide the impugned judgment modified the order of status quo and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering in the running of the tubewell as also interfering in the land mentioned hereinabove. Civil Revision No.366 of 2007 -2- I have carefully gone through the impugned order. The lower appellate Court has held that the correction in the khasra girdawri during the pendency of the litigation does not confer any right. It is further observed that the land in question which has been shown in Jumla Malkan does not belong to panchayat. It is, however, not in dispute that the revenue entries were made in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The question that the revenue entries made in the revenue record were correct according to the position of the spot is a question, which was required to be considered during the trial. The trial Court accordingly granted status quo to be maintained at site. The appellate Court, however, modified the order without appreciating the fact that entries in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the revenue record carry presumption of correctness unless rebutted in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate Court suffers from illegality and is hereby set aside. However, the parties are directed to maintain status quo at site during the pendency of the suit. 08.10.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE