C.R.No.6666 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6666 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Jagir Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Gurnam Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J By filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.8.2010 (P.3) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby an appeal filed by the defendants-respondents against the interim order dated 22.2.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ajnala has been allowed and application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been dismissed. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit No.346 dated 15.2.2009 for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents and along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed for grant of interim injunction. Upon notice, suit as well as application was resisted by the defendants-respondents by filing their written statement/reply and after hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ajnala vide order dated 22.2.2010 (P.1) allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and restrained the defendants-respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in any manner during the pendency of the civil suit. Aggrieved against the order passed by learned C.R.No.6666 of 2010 #2# trial Court, defendants-respondents preferred an appeal dated 19.3.2010 (P.2) and the same was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 13.8.2010 (P.3) and set aside the order dated 22.2.2010 and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Aggrieved against the order dated 13.8.2010, the present petition is filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for grant of interim injunction. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has found that as per revenue record, he is in possession of the land in dispute and a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned first Appellate Court to upset the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 13.8.2010. It is further argued that the mutation No.3976 has wrongly been sanctioned on the basis of order dated 22.8.2009 (P.4) and as such, the same does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants-respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and perusing the record, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed due to the following reasons: A perusal of paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment reveals that as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08, the plaintiff-petitioner is shown to be owner in possession of the suit land, however, there is a change of entry of mutation bearing No.3976 in the name of Gurnam Singh- defendant/respondent No.2. So far as earlier Civil Suit No.261 of 2000 titled as Jagbir Singh v. Gurnam Singh for permanent injunction is concerned, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated C.R.No.6666 of 2010 #3# 22.8.2009 (P.4) by the plaintiff-petitioner himself without any liberty to file fresh one by making a statement that he has compromised the matter with the defendants and he does not want to pursue the matter and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. The defendant-respondents have come up with a specific plea that Amar Singh S/o Sohan Singh i.e the father of plaintiff- petitioner was the owner in possession of certain land out of which 13/53 share belongs to defendant-respondent No.1 and said Amar Singh sold his land measuring 6 Kanals to the defendant-respondents vide registered sale deed dated 29.5.2000 registered in the office of Sub Registrar and delivered the possession of the same to defendant-respondent No.1 and thereafter his name was entered in the column of ownership and cultivation in the revenue record upto Hari 2010. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff-petitioner, who is son of said Amar Singh filed a Civil Suit No.261 against the defendants- respondent No.1 and his father for permanent injunction and during the pendency of the suit, his father Amar Singh died and his legal heirs were brought on record and the suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated 17.8.2005 on the basis of which, plaintiff-petitioner got mutation No.3976 sanctioned. Ultimately, the ex parte judgment and decree dated 17.8.2005 was set aside by the learned District Judge, Amritsar on 2.4.2009 and the case was remanded back to the learned trial Court. The plaintiff-petitioner did not lead any evidence despite availing numerous opportunities and ultimately the said Civil Suit No.261 of 2000 was dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff-petitioner vide order dated 22.8.2009 without seeking any liberty to file fresh one and it is also mentioned in the grounds of appeal before the learned District Judge that no such alleged compromise had taken C.R.No.6666 of 2010 #4# place with the defendants-respondents as mentioned in the statement while passing the order dated 22.8.2009. In fact, the defendants-respondents were continuing to be shown as owners in possession since 2000 and there is only stray entry in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner for the year 2007-08. There is no explanation that when Gurnam Singh was shown as owner in possession since 2000, then how the possession of land in dispute was taken by the plaintiff-petitioner Jagir Singh in the year 2007 as shown in the stray entry in the jamabandi for the year 2007-08. It is further evident from the record that the stray entry for the year 2007-2008 was based on the mutation got entered on the basis of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 17.5.2005, which mutation was got corrected after the setting aside the judgment and decree on 2.4.2009. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that if both the mutations i.e 3860 and 3976 are to be ignored, then previous position prior to sanctioning of his mutation is to be seen and that goes in favour of the defendants-respondents. It is not the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that no sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants-respondents and the earlier suit for permanent injunction has also been dismissed as withdrawn without seeking any liberty regarding the land in dispute. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned 13.8.2010 (P.3) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. April 18, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE