Civil Revision No. 1122 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1122 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.5.2010 Om Parkash and others .. Petitioners v. Mukesh Kumar and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge by the defendants in the present petition is to the orders, passed by the learned courts below, in an application filed by the respondents- plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs in the present case filed a suit for injunction, in which both the courts below finding them to be in possession of the property protected the same during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants sought to argue that the land in question was owned by Gram Panchayat, which in partition proceedings had been allotted to the petitioners-defendants. He further submitted that even the proceedings before the revenue authorities under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, 1961 are also pending. The interim order passed by the trial court in the suit may prejudice the partition proceedings as well as the proceedings before the revenue authorities. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It has come on record that grand father of the respondents-plaintiffs was shown to be in possession of the property as Gair Marusi. No doubt, there is no change in the entry thereafter, but still the fact remains that nothing has been produced by the petitioners on record to show that possession of the land was taken by any person from the ancestors of the respondents-plaintiffs thereafter. Mere change of ownership such as allotment of land to the petitioners in the partition proceedings, as alleged, will not change the Civil Revision No. 1122 of 2010 [2] possession of the respondents-plaintiffs on the suit land. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.5.2010 mk