Civil Revision No.2191 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2191 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:01.04.2010 Suresh .... petitioner Versus Chander & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 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.Ashok Kaushik,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the orders of the courts below whereby his application for ad interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from dispossessing him during the pendency of the suit has been dismissed. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit land has been in possession of his forefathers and now he is in possession, whereas the respondents have illegally allotted the plots out of the suit land to defendant Nos. 1 to 10 and they are threatening to dispossess him by use of force. He further argued that it has been further established on the record of the case that the plaintiff-petitioner is in possession of the suit land and therefore he is entitled to protect his possession during the pendency of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find that while rejecting his prayer for ad interim injunction the courts below Civil Revision No.2191 of 2010(O & M) 2 have found that the suit land has been described in the revenue record as Banjar Qadeem, meaning thereby, that it is not under cultivation and therefore cultivation entry carries no significance. The courts below have also noticed that in the revenue record the name of the plaintiff or his forefathers is not reflected either in the column of ownership or in the column of possession. Even in the report of Local Commissioner on which the strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not mention that petitioner is in possession of the suit land. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no error in the jurisdiction exercised by the courts below while granting the discretionary relief of ad interim injunction. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 01.04.2010 neenu