IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3635 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.7.2009 Bala Devi ....Petitioner. Versus Jamero and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed by defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the orders dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala and dated 9.3.2009 (Annexure P-9) passed by the District Judge, Patiala, whereby the application of the plaintiffs seeking ad interim injunction was allowed and the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property except in due course of law. The trial court while allowing the application of the plaintiffs had noticed in para 6 as under:- “6. It transpires that the plaintiffs claim themselves to be in possession of the said house for the last more than 50 years and the defendants claim particular portion in possession of the plaintiffs after CR No. 3635 of 2009 -2- partition and also that the defendants have released the possession of the portion forcibly occupied by the plaintiffs which was of the defendants. In this respect firstly it is to be seen that firstly issuance of notice by the defendants to the plaintiffs dated 16.10.2006 has been admitted one which has even been on the record whereby the plaintiffs were asked to vacate the house and to deliver the vacant possession of the house to the defendants and not the particular portion thereof as has been argued by the counsel for the defendants. At this stage given the said admitted notice whereby complete house and not a particular portion has been claimed from the plaintiffs, the contention of the plaintiffs that they have been in possession of the house find force and strength. The defendants contend to have delivered the possession of the suit house by the plaintiffs in October, 2006, however, no document of any such possession of the defendants over the suit property has been placed on record by the defendants. The rival claims regarding particular portion as per the partition alleged by the defendants would be a matter of trial. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit house stands apparently established and they have every right to protect the same till the rival claim of the parties stands settled and so a prima facie case CR No. 3635 of 2009 -3- along with balance of convenience exist in favour of the plaintiffs and if the plaintiffs dispossessed till the disposal of the case except in due course of law then they will be suffering an irreparable loss and as such the defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit house till the disposal of the suit except in due course of law.” The order of the trial court was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 9.3.2009. No illegality or perversity could be found in the orders passed by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Nothing contained in this order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE