IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1773 of 2009 Date of Decision : 30.11.2009 Smt.Damyanti Devi .....Petitioner versus Smt.Naresh Kumari and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the plaintiff against the order dated 11.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby her application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC to grant ad-interim injunction against the alleged forcible dispossession from the demised premises comprising a shop being part of property No.C/2523, situated on Court Road, Jagadhri, near State Bank of India, Jagadhri, has been dismissed and the said order has been further upheld by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide C.R. No.1773 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the judgment dated 16.3.2009. Briefly stated, the facts are that the first respondent Smt.Naresh Kumari filed a suit for possession by way of partition of two shops against respondent Nos.2 & 3. The said suit was filed in the year 2000 and finally decreed in her favour by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 4.1.2008. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed an execution application for preparation of the final decree in which the judgment debtors, namely, respondent Nos.2 & 3, agreed for partition of the joint property by offering one shop to respondent No.1-decree holder and in terms thereof, the Executing Court passed the following order on 1.11.2008:- “Ld. counsel for the parties have made statement in the Court on 15.10.2008 with regard to the fact that the matter has been compromised between them in accordance with the site plan placed on the file as Ex.CX and it has been jointly stated by them that the decree sheet be prepared in accordance with compromise Ex.CX and as per their joint statement made in the Court. It has also been stated by the parties to the present execution petition that the possession will be delivered within a period of two months. As such, final decree be drawn and compromise Ex.CX be made part of the final decree sheet. File be consigned to record room.” Before the possession of one of the shop could be handed over to respondent No.1-decree holder, the petitioner filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 3 from dispossessing her from the shops in dispute on the ground that she alongwith respondent No.4-Arun Kumar is a tenant in both the shops since the year 1991. She C.R. No.1773 of 2009 (O&M) 3 also applied for ad-interim injunction against her dispossession which has been declined by both the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders as well as some of the relevant documents relied upon. It is the conceded position that there is no rent note executed in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, no rent receipts have been produced by the petitioner to make a prima-facie case of tenancy in her favour. Her alleged partner, namely, respondent No.4-Arun Kumar has denied her status as a partner in the firm. The alleged partnership deed, as per the record, was executed on 1.4.2001 i.e., after filing of the suit for partition, by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3-judgment debtor in the partition suit never took up a plea before the Civil Court that the shops in dispute are occupied by tenants. In fact, he made a statement to hand-over the vacant possession of the partitioned property within a period of two months. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed above, the opinion formed by the Courts below that the petitioner has apparently filed the suit in order to frustrate the implementation of the decree dated 4.1.2008 and the order dated 1.11.2008 reproduced above, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 30-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE