IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1962 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 25, 2010 Kishan Chand and another. …Petitioners Versus Rajiv Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. S.D. Anand, J. The learned Trial Court allowed the plea filed by the plaintiff – respondent restraining the defendants – petitioners from interfering in former’s possession on the land in dispute. The defendants – petitioners were also restrained from interfere in the raising of any construction upon the suit property by the plaintiff-respondent. The defendants – petitioners are in revision. It is apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the property in suit initially belonged to defendant – petitioner no.1 who sold it to Suresh Kumar etc., vide registered sale deed dated 14.09.2000. The possession of the C.R. No. 1962 of 2010 property sold was also delivered to Suresh Kumar etc. who made improvements thereupon. In spite of having sold the suit property, the defendants – petitioners started interfering in the rights of the Suresh Kumar etc. An FIR (No.227 dated 29.01.2003) came to be registered against them for the acts aforementioned. They were convicted in that case and were released on probation of good conduct. However, even thereafter, they continued to interfere in the possession of Suresh Kumar etc. on that land, thereby impelling the latter to file a civil suit against them. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC by Suresh Kumar etc. against the defendants – petitioners was allowed. An appeal filed by the petitioners against that order was dismissed on 07.04.2005. It was thereafter that Suresh Kumar etc. sold the suit property to the plaintiff – respondent and one Sarup Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 07.04.2005. The possession of the suit property was delivered to them. Sarup Singh aforementioned sold his share in the suit property to the plaintiff – respondent, vide registered sale deed dated 29.03.2007. However, in spite thereof, the defendants – petitioners did not desist from causing interference in the possessory title of the plaintiff – respondent who lodged FIR (No.188 dated 17.2.2005) against them. The trial in that case is pending consideration at the hands of the learned Court. 2 C.R. No. 1962 of 2010 In the above noticed circumstances of the case, this Court is clear in its mind that the exercise of judicial discretion by the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court, in allowing the stay application in favour of the plaintiff – respondent and against the defendants – petitioners, does not call for any interference. In revisional jurisdiction, the ambit of interference is fairly restricted. The Revisional Court would interfere only if there is any perversity or illegality at the hands of two Courts. In the present case, there is no illegality or perversity in the exercise of judicial discretion by both the Courts. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine. March 25, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3