CR No. 2308 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2308 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.4.2011. Paramjit Singh and another .......Petitioners Vs. Lachman Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court, vide order dated 2.11.2010, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred an appeal. The District Judge, vide order dated 1.2.2011, allowed the appeal and consequently the defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the present petition by the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Khasra No. 22//3/2 (6-14) had been carved out into two parcels of land during partition. Khasra No. 22//3/2/2 measuring 3 Kanals 3 Marlas had come in possession of the defendants, whereas Khasra No. 22//3//2/1 measuring 3 Kanals 11 Marlas had come to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was put in possession of the same during CR No. 2308 of 2011 (O&M) -2- partition proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that admittedly partition proceedings had not become final and were still pending for final adjudication. Although, warrant of possession was ordered to be issued by Assistant Collector, Grade-I vide order dated 17.12.2008, however, there is nothing on the record to suggest that in fact the warrant of possession was issued in pursuance of the said order. Admittedly, the order passed by the Assistant Collector qua partition was challenged in appeal, filed by the plaintiff but the same was dismissed. However, revision petition, filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and the impugned orders were set aside. Defendants preferred an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh and the same was decided against the defendants. The defendants have challenged the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh in a revision petition before this court. Thus, it shows that the partition proceedings have not become final so far. Admittedly, as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05, Lachman Singh plaintiff was shown to be in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 22//3/2(6-14). In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court had rightly allowed the application for temporary injunction, filed by the plaintiff. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE April 05, 2011 Gurpreet