IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.6843/2008 Date of Decision:12.1.2009. Gurmit Singh and another ..........Petitioners. Versus Mohinder Kaur ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioners-plaintiffs. JASWANT SINGH,J. By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-plaintiffs have prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala and order dated 12.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, whereby the application filed by them for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Smt. Mohinder Kaur and her agents from interfering or encroaching upon and making any construction illegally and forcibly over the plot/land in dispute possessed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, measuring 6 bighas bearing khasra nos.613/489/2(3- 1), 490/2/2(2-19), as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint. Alongwith the suit, petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of ad interim injunction alleging therein that they are owners in possession of the suit property CR NO.6843/2008 2 which they have purchased through two different sale deeds and the house of the respondent-defendant adjoins with the property of the petitioners- plaintiffs and she wants to make encroachment and take forcible possession of the property owned and possessed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, to which she has no right. Upon notice, defendant filed her reply and in the preliminary objections stated that the petitioners-plaintiffs and their brothers have divided the suit land measuring six bighas into plots for residential and commercial purposes and have sold the property out of khasra nos. 613/489/2(3-1), 490/2/2 (2-19) to different persons/vendees as mentioned in sub para C to V of the written statement. Petitioner no.2-plaintiff no.2 Sawinder Singh is one of the vendees of the plot sold to him by petitioner no.1. It was further stated that the plaintiffs have failed to describe the factual position existing at the spot as in the suit land various plots and road have been carved out and residential kothies have been raised but have not been shown in the appended site plan. It was further stated that the plaint is vague and no case is made out for granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs as they are left with no ownership right in the suit property and in fact have encroached upon the property of others. The defendant placed a copy of the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 wherein the defendant is recorded as owner in possession of the property comprised in khasra nos. 613/489/1 (1-1) and 490/1 (1-13) which had been purchased by her vide sale deed dated 17.8.1966. After considering the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court as well as appellate court declined to grant ad interim injunction vide impugned orders dated 12.6.2007 and 15.4.2008, holding that the CR NO.6843/2008 3 plaintiffs have concealed the material facts as they had set up a case of permanent injunction on the basis of their title regarding entire suit property without disclosing the factum of sale to other vendees. It was held that even the property owned by the plaintiffs is not properly described in the plaint as they have not placed on record any scaled site plan depicting the existing position of the suit property at the spot. No copy of the mutation or any other revenue record has been placed on record to show that the mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of the sale deeds executed by the petitioner-plaintiff no.1 and his brothers in favour of different vendees to whom plots have been sold comprised in disputed khasra numbers. Both the courts below have held that the petitioner-plaintiff no.1 or his brothers are no more owners of the entire suit property as claimed by him in view of the sale deeds executed by them and thus they have not come to the court with clean hands and as such prima facie no case is made out for grant of injunction. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. It is clear from the facts on record that the petitioners-plaintiffs have not specifically spelt out the suit property and therefore, the courts below have not come to know as to which is the area in possession of the plaintiffs and which is in possession of the other vendees as no detailed and scaled site plan or demarcation reports have been placed on record. Therefore, the Courts have been unable to decide as to who is in possession of what area. From the pleadings, it is also clear that the petitioners are guilty of concealment of material facts as they have not disclosed the factum of sale of part of suit property to different vendees. CR NO.6843/2008 4 From the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs nor balance of convenience lies in their favour and the learned courts below have rightly declined the prayer of the petitioners-plaintiffs for grant of ad interim injunction. Dismissed in limine. 12.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge