C.R. No. 2632 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2632 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.4.2010 ... Daya Chand ................Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of Faridabad and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against order dated 27.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which the appeal against the order dated 18.3.2009, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, was accepted and application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction with the allegation that they are in cultivating possession of the suit property. Previously, Hari Singh, their father was in possession, who expired on 22.3.1999 and after his death the plaintiffs succeeded the tenancy rights and they are in established C.R. No. 2632 of 2010 -2- possession of the suit property since 1962. The case of the defendants is that eviction order has been passed against Hari Singh, father of the plaintiff-petitioner and ultimately, the possession was handed over to revenue officials on 24.8.1998. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, accepted the application and restrained the defendants-respondents from taking forcible possession. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order, the Municipal Corporation – defendant/respondents filed an appeal. The said appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Fridabad, holding that since the possession has been taken by the defendants, so the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit property. Still feeling aggrieved against the order dated 27.1.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, the present revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although eviction order was passed against Hari Singh, father of the plaintiffs, but possession was never taken. The rapat roznamcha No. 632 of 1998 referred to by the defendants is merely a paper transaction. Hari Singh has been recorded in possession of the suit property in the revenue record till today. So, in these circumstances, the Appellate Court should have not interfered in the order of the trial Court, granting injunction in favour of plaintiff-petitioner. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. The fact that eviction order was passed against Hari Singh, father of the petitioner, has not been C.R. No. 2632 of 2010 -3- disputed. The rapat roznamcha has been entered in the revenue record on 24.8.1998, in which it is mentioned that possession has been handed over to the defendants. The revenue record showing Hari Singh in possession of the suit property, is wrong on the face of it. Hari Singh, admittedly died in the year 1999 and still he has been shown to be in possession in the revenue record, as shown during the course of argument. So, the order of Appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity. So, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall decide the case uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court. ( K.C. Puri ) 23.4.2010 Judge chugh