CR No.5293 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5293 of 2010 Decided on : 23.08.2010 Darshan Singh ... Petitioner versus Mela Singh & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plainitiff’s revision petition challenging the impugned orders dated 05.02.2010 and 13.06.2009 whereby his application for grant of ad interim injunction during the pendency of the civil suit restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering into peaceful possession of the petitioner and restraining the respondent from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally has been dismissed. As per the averments made, one Khushi Mohd. was the owner in possession of suit property i.e. Garha Khad No.975 measuring 1 marla situated in village Alamgir Tehsil and District Ludhiana. On 06.03.1992, Khushi Mohd. transferred the ownership and possession of this suit property vide an agreement to sell (Annexure P-1) in favour of Soma son of Gulzar Mohd. Thereafter, Soma son of Gulzar Mohd. further agreed to sell the aforesaid suit property to the petitioner vide an agreement to sell dated 01.11.1994 (Annexure P-2). The possession of the suit property was also CR No.5293 of 2010 -2- transferred to the petitioner. Khushi Mohd. died on 06.11.1994. After his death, respondents attempted to dispossess the petitioner from his possession over the suit property but due to the timely intervention of the co-villagers they could not succeed. Thus, petitioner filed the present suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering into his peaceful possession and causing to dispossess him. Along with this suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for grant of ad interim injunction was also filed. The suit and the application was contested by defendants- respondents denying that no right in the suit property could be transferred vide aforesaid writing, which was a sham transaction. Soma could not have transferred the same in favour of the petitioner. After the death of Khushi Mohd., his wife had given the aforesaid suit property to the defendants-respondents for their use and it was submitted that the present application be dismissed. The Courts below dismissed the aforesaid application for grant of temporary injunction observing that the petitioner failed to prove on record as to how he came into possession of the suit property whereas the respondents proved on record the writing executed by the widow of Khushi Mohd. delivering possession of the suit property to them. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has duly produced all the relevant documents with regard to the purchase and transfer of the suit property but the courts below have erred holding that he was not in possession of the same and on the other hand the respondents have produced the forged and fabricated document, which have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. Moreover, the dispute is still to be CR No.5293 of 2010 -3- decided by the civil Court by taking evidence and therefore, in the interest of justice, the petitioner who is in possession of the suit property should have been granted the temporary ad interim injunction as claimed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The petitioner is claiming possession of the suit property on the basis of writings (Annexure P-1 & P-2). However, petitioner has failed to place on record as to what were the circumstances in which he has come into possession of the suit property. The law of temporary injunction is well settled and the petitioner has to prove three necessary ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injuries to the petitioner if injunction is not granted to him. In the present case the petitioner has failed to prove prima facie case in his favour. The petitioner has also prima facie failed to prove the ownership of the property in dispute. In view of the aforesaid facts, no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned orders. Dismissed. August 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE