CR No. 6124 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6124 of 2001 Date of decision:- 2.12.2010 G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Ltd. ......petitioner vs. Dan Singh and ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Ms. Shriya Chahar Panjeta, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned First Appellate Court on 22.9.2001, whereby the defendant was restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land till the decision of the suit except in due course of law. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction challenging the exchange whereby the defendant got exchanged their land on 19.4.1999 with Tej Ram. Thus, the defendant claimed right over the suit property. In the said suit, plaintiffs filed an application for ad interim injunction as well, which was declined by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has returned a finding that the jamabandi entry for the year 1992-1992 recorded, Ganga Ram and Radhey as Gair Marusi tenant stands rebutted by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs is not entitled to ad interim injunction. However, learned First Appellate Court returned a finding that from the jamabandi for the year 1961-1962, Ganga Ram is reflected as a person in possession. Plaintiffs-respondents are the legal heirs of Ganga CR No. 6124 of 2001 -2- Ram and therefore, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land by way of inheritance being heirs of Ganga Ram and Radhey. The revision petition came up for hearing before this Court on 20.11.2001 against the order of the learned First Appellate Court. This Court passed an order directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. The same has been in operation since then. The findings recorded by learned First Appellate Court is that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property being Gair Marusi tenant. Such finding cannot be said to be patently illegal and unwarranted. Still further the order of status quo granted by this Court has remained in operation. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned first Appellate Court. Thus, the revision is disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 2.12.2010 preeti