C.R. No. 4177 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4177 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: January 13, 2009 Mansha Singh .. Petitioner v. Mangal Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. N. Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the property since his ancestors and he had inherited the same, whereas the respondents, though sought to claim that the property in question was purchased by them, but they were not able to prove the same by producing any material on record. The prayer for interim injunction has been wrongly denied by the learned court below. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the property in question is a part of public street which is being used by the residents of the village from time immemorial. In fact, the area in question was subject matter of dispute in C.W.P. No. 13471 of 1997 before this Court, where the prayer was for setting aside order dated 18.6.1997 holding the property to be rasta share aam. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner has not been able to produce any material on record in support of the claim made by him, as his stand was that the same shall be produced during the course of evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the petition. It is categorically recorded by the trial court, while dismissing the C.R. No. 4177 of 2006 [2] prayer for interim relief, that vide order dated 18.6.1997, passed by Joint Development Commissioner, the site in dispute was held to be a rasta share aam, which was being used by the villagers from time immemorial. The writ petition filed before this Court challenging the aforesaid order was dismissed. It is further noticed in the order passed by the learned lower appellate court that the petitioner had not been able to bring on record any document to prove his ownership and possession over the suit property as the stand was that the same shall be proved while leading evidence. It was also noticed by the court below that the petitioner had not been able to specify the property by producing appropriate site plan on record. With this material on record, which has been considered by the learned court below, I do not find that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour for grant of interim injunction. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.1.2009 mk