C. R. No. 7299 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7299 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 03, 2010 Punjab Agriculture University and others .... Petitioners Vs. Mohinder Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. B. S. Mangat, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 27.01.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, thereby allowing application moved by plaintiff-respondent Mohinder Singh for temporary injunction and restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from taking forcible possession of any part thereof till final decision of the suit. The petitioners have also challenged the appellate judgment dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kapurthala thereby dismissing the defendants' appeal against trial court's order Annexure P-2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. C. R. No. 7299 of 2009 2 The plaintiff alleged that he and his brothers are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 06 kanals 03 marlas comprised of khasra no.837, but the defendants i.e. Punjab Agriculture University and officers of its Research Center, having no right, title or interest in the suit land, tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the defendants are in possession thereof since 24.08.1966 and defendants had sown rice crop therein after harvesting wheat crop, when the written statement and reply was filed. In demarcation obtained by the plaintiff on 31.05.2005, possession of defendants was found over the suit land. The defendants claim to have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. The instant revision petition is liable to dismissal on account of delay and laches. Impugned order of the trial court is dated 27.01.2007 and impugned order of the appellate court is dated 24.09.2008 and the instant revision petition was preferred in December 2009 i.e. about 15 months after the passing of the impugned order by the appellate court. There is no explanation whatsoever for this long delay of 15 months. If the injunction order granted by the lower courts can operate for three years since 27.01.2007, the same is not required to be vacated in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, when the revision petition itself has been instituted after long undue and unexplained delay. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per demarcation report dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure P-1), defendants were found in unauthorized possession of 03 kanals 15 marlas land out of the suit land and the suit for injunction was filed eight months thereafter. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no force therein. Defendant no.1 University is a statutory body. The defendants cannot claim right to perpetuate their alleged unauthorized possession over C. R. No. 7299 of 2009 3 the suit land. Revenue record reveals that plaintiff and his brothers are owners in possession of the suit land. Both the courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of the plaintiff. The said discretion cannot be said to be perverse or illegal and is, therefore, not required to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. February 03, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE