IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.207 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.02.2009 1.` Chanan Kaur widow of Piara Singh; 2. Harvinder Kaur widow of Paramjit Singh son of Piara Singh; both residents of village Prempur, Tehsil Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala. ... Petitioners Versus Girdhari Lal son of Hira son of Buti, resident of village Prempur, Tehsil Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL) This is defendant's revision petition, challenging the order dated 20.08.2008 and 13.08.2007, passed by District Judge, Kapurthala and Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, District Kapurthala respectively vide which, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the plaintiff/respondent was allowed and the defendants/petitioners were restrained from interfering into the suit possession of the plaintiff/respondent over the suit -2- property till the disposal of the suit. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are that respondent Girdhari Lal, filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he was having landed property. Piara Singh, brother of the plaintiff expired and similarly Paramjit Singh son of Piara Singh, also expired. The defendants are in possession of the land adjacent to the suit property which was left by Piara Singh and Paramjit Singh. The defendants have no right or title or interest in the suit property. The defendants are threatening to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, which has necessitated, the filing of the suit. Alongwith this suit, plaintiff/respondent also filed an application, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, for grant of ad-interim stay, restraining the petitioners from interfering into the peaceful possession of the suit property. The suit as well as the application for ad-interim injunction was contested by the petitioners by taking up the plea that defendants are in possession of the suit property, on the basis of an agreement to sell, dated 02.01.1988, executed by Girdhari Lal, in favour of Piara Singh, the predecessor, in interest of the petitioners. However, the Courts below after taking into consideration the revenue record, in which, the plaintiff/respondent has been shown to be in possession granted the ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff/respondent. -3- Challenging the aforesaid orders of the Courts below, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below have erred while granting the ad-interim injunction to the plaintiff/respondent, as possession of the petitioner is clearly established from the recital in the agreement to sell, wherein, it has been clearly stated that the possession of the suit property has been handed over to the vendee. I find no force in the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. The agreement to sell, in question, is yet to be proved and is the subject matter of a suit for specific performance, filed by the petitioner, which is pending. Admittedly, the petitioner has also filed an application for grant of ad-interim stay in that suit. However, till date, no order, in his favour has been passed by that Court. Even otherwise, it is well settled that this Court should not interfere in the discretion exercised while granting temporary injunction, by the Courts below, unless an error apparent on the record or some error of jurisdiction has been pointed out. This is not the case before me. No merits. Dismissed. 06.02.2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Amodh JUDGE