Civil Revision No.4571 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-30.7.2010 Kirandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dayawanti alias Daya Wanti ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Avtar Singh Syan, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that the application, for interim stay under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC filed by Kirandeep Singh petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) in a suit for decree of permanent injunction against Dayawanti alias Daya Wanti (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendant”), was dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court. The plaintiff filed Civil Revision No.5708 of 2008, in which, his dispossession was stated to have been stayed by this Court. According to the plaintiff, during the pendency of the indicated revision petition, the defendant has dispossessed him forcibly with the help of police. Consequently, he converted his suit for permanent injunction into mandatory injunction by virtue of amendment directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the disputed shop to him and filed the amended plaint. 2. The Civil Revision No.5708 of 2008 came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (S.D.Anand, J.) with the following observations, vide order dated 28.1.2009:- “The parties are relegated to the learned trial Court which shall record of the fact about the whether the petitioner came to be forcible dispossessed during the pendency of the present revision petition or not. The exercise shall be Civil Revision No.4571 of 2010 2 concluded within one month with effect from the date on which the date the matter shall be listed before the trial court. If the learned trial court finds that if the petitioner had actually been forcibly dispossessed an order on the point of restoration shall obviously followed.” 3. In pursuance of order of this Court, the trial Court held that the plaintiff never remained in possession of the disputed property, vide impugned order dated 7.3.2009 (Annexure P1). 4. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), the petitioner-plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P2). 5. Still aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Courts below, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the petition. 7. As is evident from the record, the trial Court has observed that the actual possession of the disputed shop was once upon a time with one Sandeep Singh and not with the present petitioner Kirandeep Singh. In this respect, the Ist appellate Court also observed as under:- “The appellant has not brought any cogent evidence to prove his possession. The said rent note relied upon by the appellant on the alleged stamp paper is neither bearing any stamp number nor bears any official stamp nor there is any endorsement by whom it was sold. The above referred argument of the counsel for respondent is convincing and goes to show that the said rent deed relied upon by the appellant is forged one. Sukhwinder Singh CW2 is resident of District Fatehabad and hence his presence is not established. The respondent has brought on the file the affidavit of the appellant where he has stated that he is not in possession of the suit land. Civil Revision No.4571 of 2010 3 The copy of the rent note dated 31.1.06 shows that suit property was given to one Sandeep Singh on rent at the rate of Rs.7500/- per month. The appellant has not brought cogent evidence to prove that he was or is in possession of the suit property.” 8. Meaning thereby, the courts below found that the plaintiff never remained in possession of the disputed shop. Perhaps that was the reason, he has amended his suit of permanent injunction to the one for a decree of mandatory injunction. Having scanned the material on record, the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff Kirandeep Singh never remained in possession of the disputed property and such concurrent finding of fact cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned orders by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, so as to take a contrary view than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the courts below in this context. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the trial, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that nothing observed here-in-above would, in any manner, reflect on the merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 30.7.2010 Judge AS