IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6073 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Raj Kumar Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Raj Pal and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The defendant-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.5.2007 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and on appeal that order was confirmed by the lower appellate court vide order dated 27.9.2008. The trial court while granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs has recorded as under:- “It is observed that it is admitted fact, earlier the suit land has been cultivated by Hari Singh father of the plaintiffs as Gair Morusi tenant, this fact is evident from the revenue record i.e. jamabandis for the years 1984-85 and 1999-2000. Plaintiffs have pleaded that CR No. 6073 of 2008 -2- after the death of their father they are coming in continuous possession over the suit land in the footstep of their father. This fact is specifically denied by learned counsel for the defendant and arguing that at present defendant is in cultivating possession of the suit land and plaintiffs have no concern with the same but they are taking the undue advantage of the entries in the revenue record which stood in favour of their father. So, from the contention of the parties, it is clear that defendant claimed himself in possession of the suit land but it is not pleaded as to on which date and on what occasion the plaintiffs have delivered the possession of the suit land to defendant. Defendant has not placed any latest khasra girdawari etc. It is contended that he has moved an application before revenue authority for correction of khasra girdawari in their favour but neither any application nor any such order has been placed on record. So, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant is in possession over the suit land. On the other hand the various jamabandis available on record go to show that plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land since long. So the various revenue record established a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and if defendant is not restrained to CR No. 6073 of 2008 -3- dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly and illegally then certainly plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Thus, finding three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury in favour of plaintiffs application stands allowed accordingly and defendant is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and illegally.” The said order was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner in the orders passed by the courts below which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. However, the trial court shall make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the suit. August 7, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE