C.R. No. 5193 of 2007 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 5193 of 2007 Date of decision: February 24,2009 Om Parkash ..Petitioner Versus Baljinder Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms. Anu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Sikand, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 21.1.2006 and 8.2.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City and Additional District Judge, Ambala respectively, whereby the application of the plaintiff/petitioner filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ad interim injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has proved on record that he is in cultivating possession of the suit land and therefore, balance of convenience was in his favour and the petitioner was entitled to the ad interim injunction as prayed for and the courts below have erred at law while rejecting the said prayer. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the revenue record produced by the petitioner showing him in possession of the suit land has been rebutted satisfactorily and therefore, the necessary ingredients for the grant of ad interim injunction are missing in the present case and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. C.R. No. 5193 of 2007 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. While dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, it was observed by the lower Appellate Court that the order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, on the basis of which petitioner was shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit property in the revenue record was set aside by the Collector Naraingrah and allowed the application filed by the respondents for correction of khasra girdawaris and the order of Collector Naraingarh accepting the appeal of the respondent was further upheld by the Financial Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. It is well settled that the appellate Court while hearing the appeal against the interlocutory will be slow to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court. No material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction has been pointed out in the impugned orders. Dismissed. February 20, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE