Civil Revision No. 857 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 857 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.2.2010 Kashmir Singh .. Petitioner v. Mangat Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N. S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.12.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby police protection was provided to the respondent-plaintiff to protect his possession in terms of the order passed by the learned court below in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in his favour. The petitioner-defendant did not prefer any appeal against the interim order passed by the learned court below in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 9.6.2009. The application for providing police help was filed with the allegation that the petitioner-defendant was interfering into his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact on the spot he is in possession of the land as one of the persons, namely, Haru Singh, who was earlier in possession of the property, handed over the possession to him after taking Rs. 1,50,000/- and that fact should be verified before granting any police help to the respondent-plaintiff, which may cause injustice to the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is a case in which interim stay protecting the possession of the respondent-plaintiff was passed by the learned court below on 9.6.2009 and the petitioner feeling not aggrieved against the said order did not file any appeal and resultantly, the same attained finality. While passing the order of interim stay in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, the learned court below referred to the entries in the revenue record and also a judgment and decree dated 11.4.2007, passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur regarding the suit land holding therein that the present petitioner was not in possession of the suit Civil Revision No. 857 of 2010 [2] property. Once the petitioner-defendant was not aggrieved against the order of interim stay passed by the learned court below protecting the possession of the respondent-plaintiff, no fault can be found with the impugned order directing police help to protect his possession. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 23.2.2010 mk