IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3336 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 24.1.2008 Amar Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate vs. Vinod Kumari ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby on an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-respondents, ad-interim injunction has been granted in their favour thereby restraining the petitioner from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property. While granting the ad-interim injunction, the learned Additional District Judge has categorically observed that the suit land has been purchased by the respondents-plaintiffs by way of registered sale deed dated 5.6.1985. This fact was not disputed by the petitioner-defendant also. However, the petitioner contended that he continues to remain in possession of the suit land as the same was given to him on one-third Batai. The aforesaid plea of tenancy/lease, however, could not be, prima facie, substantiated by him, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, C.R. No.3336 of 2006 -2- Ambala has observed that the respondent-plaintiffs, being undisputed owners of the suit property, are in possession thereof. It may be noticed here that the ad-interim injunction order was passed by the first appellate Court on 26.4.2006. About 2 years have passed thereafter. Meanwhile, it is not disputed that the respondent-plaintiffs have already started leading their evidence. The suit proceedings, thus, can be concluded within a short span. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, I do not find it a fit case for interference with the impugned order dated 26.4.2006 by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with a direction to the learned trial Court to make an endeavour to conclude the ongoing trial as early as possible and preferably within six months. However, the observations made by the learned First Appellate Court in the impugned order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. January 24, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE