C.R. No. 2923 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2923 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.5.2010 ... Kala Ram ................Petitioner vs. Bahadar Singh and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Lalit Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the respondent-caveators. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Sh. S.S. Salar, advocate has appeared on behalf of the caveator-respondents This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 2.2.2010, passed by Sh. Kuldeep Singh Cheema, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Patiala, vide which the well reasoned order dated 16.5.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha, was disturbed by accepting the appeal against the said order. The plaintiff-now petitioner, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the C.R. No. 2923 of 2010 -2- peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the suit property. The defendants filed written statement taking the plea that they are purchasers of the property from LRs of Kesar Chand. Admittedly, eviction petition is pending against the plaintiff-petitioner for eviction. So, the possession of the property stands admitted. The trial Court passed well reasoned order dated 16.5.2009. However, the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Patiala, has accepted the appeal on the ground that there is concealment of facts. In fact Kala Ram alias Raj Kumar s/o Jethu Ram is in possession and the petitioner is not in possession of the property in dispute. The finding of the Appellate Court is based upon mere conjectures and surmises. The factum of tenancy has not been disputed. Jethu Ram was the original tenant and Kala Ram @ Raj Kumar and Ram Lal are the sons. The tenancy is inheritable. On that account also both the brothers have tenancy right in the suit property and can protect their tenancy rights. It is settled law that Appellate Court should be slow in interfering the discretionary order of injunction, unless the same is perverse or illegal. The Appellate Court has lost sight of that fact. So, in these circumstances, the revision petition stands accepted. The impugned order dated 2.2.2010, stands set aside and the order dated 16.5.2009 stands restored. ( K.C. Puri ) 14.5.2010 Judge chugh C.R. No. 2923 of 2010 -3-