Civil Revision No. 4122 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CMs No. 17059-CII, 18908-09-CII of 2009 & Civil Revision No. 4122 of 2009 Date of decision: 17.08.2009 Om Parkash and others ....Petitioners Versus Ram Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 17059-CII, 18908-09-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioners are exempted from filing the certified copies of the Annexures and are permitted to place on record the true copies thereof. CR No. 4122 of 2009 This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 4122 of 2009 titled Om Parkash and others Vs. Ram Kumar and Civil Revision No. 4120 of 2009 titled Mukanda Ram and others Vs. Ram Kumar, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 4122 of 2009 titled Om Parkash and others Vs. Ram Kumar This revision petition is directed against the order dated Civil Revision No. 4122 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 15.6.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands allowed. The plaintiff brought a suit for injunction against the defendant/petitioners, restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession. The suit was filed on the basis of cultivating possession as gair marusi. In support of the suit, reliance was placed on the revenue record. The defendant/petitioners contested the suit by claiming that they were in possession of the suit land and, in fact, application for correction of khasra girdawri had already been moved on 17.6.2008 i.e. prior to filing of the suit. It is further the case of the petitioners, that vide order dated 28.1.2009, after the spot inspection, khasra girdawri was changed in the name of the petitioners, therefore, the learned Courts below committed an error in allowing the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Courts below have allowed the application on the ground, that the plaintiff/respondent was recorded in possession of the property in the revenue record and any change in the revenue record during the pendency of the suit was not to affect the rights of the plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends, that the learned Courts below have committed an error in allowing the application by recording a wrong finding. The contention is that the learned trial Court granted injunction in view of the fact that the order passed by the Collector for correction of khasra girdawri was Civil Revision No. 4122 of 2009 (O&M) -3- pending in appeal, in which the stay was granted. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the appeal itself has been dismissed on 28.1.2009, whereas the learned lower appellate Court committed an error in recording a finding that the order passed by the Collector was ex parte, which was factually incorrect, rather the plaintiff/respondent had accepted that he would be bound by the report. It was thereafter that the order was passed. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted, in view of the settled law that the change of revenue record during the pendency of suit is not to affect the merits of the case. It is not in dispute, that on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent was in possession, therefore, the learned Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff/respondent was prima facie in possession of the property in dispute and, thus, entitled to injunction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 17, 2009 R.S.