Civil Revision No. 6712 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6712 of 2006 Date of Decision: 23.4.2009 Tarlok Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Baljit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Present: Shri HPS Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The defendants are in revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whereby the defendant-petitioners were restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-respondent, over the suit land. The plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the suit land. The defendants alleged to have entered into an agreement to purchase the suit land on 6.12.1996 for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- out of which Rs.35,000/- is alleged to have been paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The Courts below have granted ad-interim injunction on the basis of the fact that the agreement by itself does not create any interest Civil Revision No. 6712 of 2006 (2) in the immovable property and that in the revenue record, the plaintiff is recorded as owner in possession of the same. The defendants have propounded the agreement in the written statement. In replication, the plaintiff has asserted that the agreement is without consideration; the same is a vague document and was never executed by the plaintiff and the same was procured by defendant No. 1 in connivance with the marginal witnesses and scribe by forging the signatures of the plaintiff. The question whether the agreement is a genuine or not or whether the defendant was handed over possession in terms of the aforesaid agreement, are disputed questions of fact. This Court has passed an order of status quo regarding possession on 15.12.2006. The said order is the most appropriate order, in view of the stand of the defendant-petitioners that they were handed over possession of the property in dispute. In view of the above, the present revision petition is disposed of with the direction to the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of possession over the suit property, during the pendency of the suit. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23-04-2009 ds