Civil Revision No.42 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.42 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:01.07.2010 Ranjit Singh .... petitioner Versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby while accepting the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents, the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division)Gurgaon, granting ad interim injunction was set aside. As per averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from opening any door towards the passage, exclusively owned and possessed by him, forcibly and illegally. Along with this suit, petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC claiming ad interim injunction in terms of the prayer made in the suit. The suit was contested by the respondents denying that the Civil Revision No.42 of 2010(O & M) 2 plaintiff was owner or was in possession of the passage in dispute. It was further claimed that the passage is not personal/private passage of the petitioner and the same was never purchased by him. It was further pleaded that vendors of the petitioner did not have the right, title or interest in the said passage and were not competent to sell the same to the petitioner. Vide order dated 15.06.2009, ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner and the defendants-respondents were restrained from opening any door towards the disputed passage as described in para 1 and 2 of the plaint and marked with letters “DEFG” and shown as red in the attached site plan till the disposal of the suit. On an appeal filed by the respondents, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon set aside the aforesaid order vide impugned order dated 14.10.2009 and dismissed the application for ad interim injunction filed by the petitioner. While passing the aforesaid order, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon observed as under: “From the above said discussion, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove himself to be owner of the passage in dispute as the same was not purchased by him by virtue of sale deed dated 19.05.2004 in his favour and plaintiff has thus no right to use the passage exclusively. Plaintiff thus has not got a prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of plaintiff and he shall also not suffer an irreparable loss and injury, in case injunction is not granted as he is not the owner of the passage in question as the same was not purchased by virtue of sale deed in his favour. Rather, great inconvenience and irreparable loss would be caused to the defendants, in case they are deprived of using the passage in question as they are co-sharers in the said passage along with vendors of the plaintiff. As such, the order under challenge is not based on material on the file and same is absolute perverse and illegal and is liable to be set aside.” Civil Revision No.42 of 2010(O & M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with the observations that the disputed passage as it exists, shall be maintained by both the parties. Aforesaid passage shall not be obstructed by either of the parties during the pendency of the suit. However, it is made clear that the respondents may open their door in the aforesaid passage subject to the decision of the suit and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 01.07.2010 neenu