IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 831 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th July, 2009. Rai Sahib Mehta Petitioner through Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate Versus Smt. Uma Mehta and Ors. Respondents through Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed by the defendants, who are aggrieved at the grant of ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs vide order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Ajnala which has been further upheld by the learned District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 29.11.2008. Suffice it to state that the respondent – plaintiffs are the widow and children of Surinder Mohan, who was brother of petitioner No. 1. Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are sons of Petitioner No.1. There is a dispute within the family over the possessory rights in respect of land measuring 17 kanals 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Mudh Bhilowal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. The Courts below have referred to the revenue record comprising Jamabandies and Khasra Girdawaris wherein the deceased – Surinder Mohan/predecessor-in-interest of the respondent – plaintiffs has been consistently depicted to be in exclusive possession. The petitioners' solitary contention raised before this Court is that Surinder Mohan had shifted to Himachal Pradesh in the year 1997 where he unfortunately expired, whereas the revenue record prima-facie relied upon by the Courts below shows him in possession of the suit land even after his death. On this premise, it is urged that no reliance could be placed upon the revenue record. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am of the view that no interference with the impugned orders is called for. It is well settled that in an ad-interim injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, it is the sole discretion of the trial Court to consider the relevant material and form a tentative opinion with regard to existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury likely to be caused to the parties. Applying these golden principles, the trial Court has observed that Surinder Mohan – predecessor-in-interest of the respondent – plaintiffs remained in exclusive and consistent possession of the suit land. Consequently, ad-interim injunction has been granted to his legal representatives. The first Appellate Court has also affirmed that order. It is well settled that the Revisional Court even after forming a different view, can not upset the orders under challenge. It is suggested that since Surinder Mohan had shifted to Himachal Pradesh, he was no longer in possession of the suit land. The contention appears to be wholly misconceived. Even if Surinder Mohan had shifted to Himachal Pradesh, he could still continue to be in lawful possession of the suit land, until dispossessed in due course of law. No such plea has been taken by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balbir Singh & Anr. V Jatinder Singh & Anr. 2009[1] RCR[Civil], 253. The same appears to be wholly misplaced. The occasion to lead evidence is yet to come for the parties as the controversy herein pertains to an application for the grant of ad-interim injunction only. The record does indicate that the petitioners are moving one after the other civil misc. applications before the trial Court. Though nothing can be said about genuineness of these applications, however, the trial Court ought not to distract itself and should proceed further to decide the suit on merits. Dismissed. July 14, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE