C.R. No.5632 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5632 of 2009 Decided on : 29-04-2010 Hira Singh & another .... Petitioners VERSUS Hardeep Kaur & others .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioners. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa. The father of petitioners namely Buta Singh (plaintiff No.1 since deceased) along with Wazir Singh, their brother (plaintiff No.2 since deceased) had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering in their possession. The suit property, prima facie, has been sold by Buta Singh/ plaintiff No.1, to the respondents. The sale deed is pleaded to be a result of fraud. However, perusal of the material on record shows that there is no challenge to the sale deed and a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction has been filed. The Trial Court accepted the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and ordered that status quo be maintained by the parties. C.R. No.5632 of 2009 -2- In appeal, this observation was upset. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in a suit for permanent injunction, possession has been prima facie established in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. The status quo order would have served the purpose and therefore, the appellate Court has gone wrong in declining this relief. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned order and other material on record, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioners have merely stated that sale deed in favour of the respondents is result of fraud. It has been noticed by the Courts below that the sale deed had reflected handing over the possession to the respondents. There is no challenge to the sale deed as such. Therefore, to say that the petitioners are in possession of the property, would be an erroneous inference. In any eventuality, the discretionary relief, which has been vested in the Court, has been declined for relevant considerations. Thus, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the petition being without any merit is dismissed. 29th April, 2010. (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE