C.R. No.1886 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1886 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.08.2009 Gram Panchayat Junhera .....Petitioner Versus Vikram Singh and others ....Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The defendant in suit, who suffered an interim order of injunction issued by the trial Court at the interlocutory stage and which order was confirmed in appeal, is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The plaintiff had been admittedly in possession of the property and when some proceedings of the Collector issued under Panchayat Village Common Land Act were sought to be executed, the plaintiff filed a fresh suit contending that in respect of the very same property, there had been a Civil Court decree entitling him to the property. The defence taken by the Panchayat was that the decree had been obtained in collusion by the plaintiff with some officials of the Gram Panchayat and that the Collector's order under the Panchayat Village Common Land Act issued under Section 7 clearly showed that C.R. No.1886 of 2005 (O&M) -2- the property belonged only to the Panchayat and the plaintiff was in wrongful possession. 3. The trial Court was satisfied about the prima facie case of the plaintiff, taking note of the decree of the Civil Court and the admitted position that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. As per the reasoning of the trial Court, the issue whether there was any act of collusion that vitiated the effect of the Civil Court decree was required to be considered only at the stage of the trial of the suit. The injunction was consequently issued in favour of plaintiff and it was also confirmed in appeal. 4. The consideration of the relevant matters at the interlocutory stage has been properly undertaken by the Courts below and requires no intervention, so long as there is nothing patently illegal about the order or where there arises no error in jurisdiction. The interference in revision is uncalled for and the civil revision is without merits. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 11, 2009 Pankaj*