C.R. No.5110 of 2010(O&M) -1- ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5110 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision : 23.08.2010 Jaswant Singh ......Petitioner Vs. Balwant Kaur ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. J.P. Kaushal, Advocate for Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for the Caveator/respondent. *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision challenging the impugned order whereby his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant-respondent from the suit property during the pendency of the suit, has been dismissed. It is relevant to mention at this stage that in para 4 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that the defendant- respondent in her written statement as well as in the counter claim has admitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land for the purpose of cultivation and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I have perused the written statement filed by the C.R. No.5110 of 2010(O&M) -2- ... defendant-respondent which is placed on record as Annexure P-2. There is no averment on behalf of the defendant-respondent admitting the cultivating possession of the petitioner in the suit property. It has been clearly stated in the aforesaid written statement that there was an order dated July 20, 2009 passed by Assistant Collector II, Abohar. Vide said order, the girdawari was fraudulently changed in the name of the petitioner. However, the aforesaid girdawari has been corrected vide order dated July 20, 2009 by the Revenue Authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown anything else on the record to show his possession in the suit property. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 23.08.2010 neetu