Civil Revision No.1590 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.1590 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : August 17, 2009 M/s Raj Kumar Aggarwal & Company ... Petitioner VERSUS Krishan Kumar and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Deepak Sabarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff – petitioner (herein referred as the plaintiff) against the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jalandhar. Factual background of the case is that M/s Raj Kumar Aggarwal & Company, a partnership firm had preferred a suit that it is owner of the suit land measuring 17 Kanal 3 Marlas by way of sale-deed dated 27.3.1978. However, for the fault on the part of the revenue staff, the mutation could not be entered. As such, the suit land is still shown in the Civil Revision No.1590 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] name of one Pritam Devi. It was further averred that the plaintiff after purchase of the land, constructed go-downs and planted some eucalyptus trees. The go-downs were rented out to the Food Corporation of India. In the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001, Khasra numbers were bifurcated. Taking undue benefit of the incorrect bifurcation, the defendants wanted to take possession of the go-downs of the plaintiffs and also cut and remove the eucalyptus trees from the suit property. As such, the plaintiffs filed the suit along with an application for ad-interim injunction, which was dismissed. The appeal also failed. The stand of the defendants is that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. The same stood partitioned between the co-sharers by the revenue authorities on 9.4.1984. The plaintiff being well aware of the pending proceedings, did not apply for its impleadment as party. Even the plaintiff has not disclosed as from whom the property was purchased by him and whether his vendee had clear title to sell the property to him. Consequently, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as the application for injunction. Heard. Actually, the present suit is based on the previous round of litigation between the parties, about the same subject matter. Earlier a similar application was dismissed in another suit between the parties, filed at the instance of the plaintiff against the defendants with regard to the same property. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by Shri Surinder Gupta, the then Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 13.2.2003. However, the said suit was later on dismissed as Civil Revision No.1590 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] withdrawn at the instance of the plaintiff on 7.2.2003, while alleging that the suit had some technical defect, without seeking permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Thus, the present suit without seeking permission could not be filed. Anyway, now the plaintiff by giving a new colour, has filed the suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction by concealing the material facts. However, essentials with regard to the temporary injunction have already been discussed by both the Courts below i.e. the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and it was not found that the plaintiff has any prima facie case and balance of convenience in its favour. It could also not be shown as to whether it would suffer irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted. No perversity, arbitrariness or unreasonability could be detected in the orders passed by the Courts below, therefore, I hasten to interfere with the same. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. August 17, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE