Civil Revision No. 3654 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 3654 of 2009 Date of decision : 14.1.2010 Har Kauri and another ....Petitioners Versus Mahender Singh and others ...Respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 4556 of 2009 Billo and another ....Petitioners Versus Mahender Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2. S. D. ANAND, J. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a civil suit for the restraint of defendants-respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was also moved for the grant of ad-interim injunction. The averment was that they are cultivating the land in suit, as gairmaursi tenant under the defendants-respondents, since the time of their forefathers, They had never been dispossessed from the land in suit and the recorded revenue entries are also in their favour. The defendants- Civil Revision No. 3654 of 2009 -2- **** respondents, who have nothing at all to do with the land in suit are inclined to dispossess the plaintiffs-petitioners from that land. The defendants-respondents contested the injunction application and averred, in the context of the resistance, that the petitioners were owners of the land in suit, alongwith certain other land as well, which they had sold off to them vide registered sale deed dated 29.1.2003 for a consideration of Rs. 4 lacs. That sale deed was effected in favour of the defendant-respondent No.1 who subsequently conceded a decree, in respect thereof, on 23.2.2004 to the extent of ½ share of the land. A mutation, on the basis of sale deed dated 29.1.2003, in favour of defendant no.1 was also sanctioned on 31.12.2003. Ever since the date of purchase, it is the defendants-respondents who are in possession of the land in suit. Besides it, the petitioners-plaintiffs had also sworn an affidavit wherein they had conceded the possession of defendants-respondents on that land. The further averment, in the context, was that it is the defendants-respondents who are paying the Nehri Abiana. Before the learned Trial Court, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that sale deed dated 29.1.2003 had already been impounded by the revenue authorities as it was a result of fraud. Learned Trial Court, while allowing the plea for ad-interim injunction, ordered the restraint of defendants-respondents from dispossessing the petitioners-plaintiffs except in due course of law. In appeal, however, the learned Ist Appellate Court reversed the order and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The plaintiffs-petitioners are in revision against the order granted by the learned Ist Appellate court. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the Civil Revision No. 3654 of 2009 -3- **** sale deed dated 29.1.2003 has not been set aside by any competent Court of law till date. The impounding thereof by the revenue authorities does not invalidate the sale deed. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs- petitioners was not in a position to contest the plea on behalf of the defendants-respondents that impounding of sale deed aforementioned had been ordered by the revenue authorities on account of certain deficiency in the stamp fee. Likewise, the decree conceded by defendant- respondent no.1 in favour of defendant-respondent no.,2 had also not been invalidated by any competent Court of law till date. The learned counsel for the defendants-respondents has also validly placed reliance upon R/3 and R/4 which are statements made by Raja son of Singha Ram and Prem son of Singha Ram (sons of petitioner no.1 Har Kauri and brother of petitioner no.2 Mukesh) wherein they had conceded that the possession of the land in suit had been delivered to defendants-respondents and that Abiana of that land is being paid by defendant-respondent No.1-Mohinder and defendant-respondent no.2-Lilu Ram. Those statements were made by them on 4.6.2007 and 5.7.2007 respectively. It is further apparent from a perusal of the plaint that plaintiffs- petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands. In the course of the plaint, they did not make a mention of the sale deed dated 29.1.2003. It is one thing to refrain from making a mention of the sale deed and is quite another thing to make a mention thereof and to aver that it was vitiated by fraud and was under challenge before the competent authority. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, states that statements purported to have been made by Raja and Prem are all farcical inasmuch as they had never appeared before the Tehsildar and their statements had been recorded by the Reader to that Court on his own. Civil Revision No. 3654 of 2009 -4- **** The plea raised is denuded of merit. There is a presumption about the correctness of the proceedings taken by a Court of law. Those statements purported to have been made by them bear the thumb impression of makers thereof and those further purport to have been signed by Tehsildar. It is not a case where the plaintiffs-petitioners deny that the thumb impressions appearing under those statements are not theirs. Further, the plaintiffs-petitioners cannot escape the charge of not having come to the Court with clean hands. This inferential observation is based upon the fact that plaint filed by them does not make a mention of sale deed dated 29.1.2003 at all. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, I find that finding recorded by the learned Ist Appellate Court deserves affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the suit on the merits thereof completely unfazed by the whatever observations may have been made in the course of this order by this Court. January 14,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE