CIVIL REVISION NO.3984 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 29, 2008 Sita Ram .....Petitioner VERSUS Ram Partap and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands dismissed by Civil Judge as well as the lower Appellate Court. He, as such, has filed this revision petition. The petitioner is a tenant in the land measuring 18 bighas 16 biswas detailed in the head note of the plaint. He claims that the petitioner is using a private passage as ingress and egress to the said fields from Rewari road. The grievance is that the respondents are trying to raise construction over the area used as passage, which CIVIL REVISION NO.3984 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: is being used by the petitioner for a long time. On a notice issued to the respondents, they appeared and disclosed that a land measuring 0-3 biswas was purchased by them through a registered sale deed dated 11.9.2000 and, thus, they are carrying out construction over the property and as such, the petitioner would have no concern with the same. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that by carrying out construction, the respondents are blocking the only passage that is available to the petitioner for his land which he has taken on lease from the Municipal Committee. On the basis of pleadings and the submissions made before the Court, it was found that the Rasta, which is being claimed by the respondents as their property, is situated in Khasra No.2128 of which the petitioner is neither the owner nor in possession. The petitioner has also not challenged the sale deed in favour of the respondents in any manner. The dimension of the property has been clearly mentioned in the sale deed. It is in this factual background that the Court has noticed that there is no material on the file to prove the contention of the petitioner that he is using this passage from 1982. It is further noticed that the respondents had shown prima-facie that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of a sale deed dated 11.9.2000. It appears that even a Local Commissioner was appointed who inspected the site on 7.12.2000. Some construction material was found lying on the land as was observed by the Local Commissioner. The petitioner had made an attempt to rely upon some demarcation report, which is dated 9.3.2008, which was found CIVIL REVISION NO.3984 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: to have been obtained during the pendency of the appeal but in the absence of the respondents. This report was not rightly relied upon by the Appellate Court. The Court had accordingly found that the petitioner failed to show that property in dispute is a passage or that the same is being used by him as ingress or egress to the suit land. Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the evidence given by the representative of the Municipal Committee to show that the land in dispute was being used as a passage. All these aspects and the material placed on record were adequately considered by the courts below and appreciation of the evidence at the stage of revision would not be called for to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts in regard to the prima-facie proof of the respondents being owners of the land in dispute on the basis of a sale deed. The prayer of the petitioner, as such, was declined in a just and proper manner and would not call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. July 29, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE