Civil Revision No. 2637 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2637 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.4.2011 *** Sarjeet .. Petitioner Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The defendant has filed the instant revision petition against the orders dated 24.8.2007 and 14.2.2011 passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court respectively by dint of which the application filed by respondents-plaintiffs, in the suit, has been allowed and during pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant has been restrained from causing interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and dispossessing therefrom, except in due course of law. Heard. The plaintiffs claimed the possession of their father over the suit land as tenant gair marusi and after his death they stepped into his shoes came into the possession of the suit land in the same capacity. On the other hand the defendant claimed that he purchased the suit land for consideration in the year 1975, but the revenue entries, showing the possession of father of plaintiff, could not be get corrected. It is evident from the record that the revenue record produced by the plaintiffs speak of their possession on the suit land. Although, the defendant purchased the suit land in the year 1975, but he remained silent for about three decades and filed the application for correction of revenue record only in the year 2005. Thus, relying upon the revenue record, an inference was drawn that the defendant never came in possession of the suit land and it was rightly held that the prima facie the plaintiffs are in Civil Revision No. 2637 of 2011 2 possession of the suit land. Thus, both the Courts below rightly restrained the petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land during pendency of the suit and from dispossessing them, but except in due course of law. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. The instant petition being without merit is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 25 , 2011 Jiten