CR No. 2609 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2609 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2011. Harjit Singh @ Billu and another .......Petitioners Vs. Karnail Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide order dated 26.7.2010, Civil Judge (Junior Division) disposed of the application and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession over the suit property as existing on the date of filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the District Judge vide order dated 22.3.2011 allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh. Hence, the present petition by the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since both the parties were claiming possession qua the suit CR No. 2609 of 2011 (O&M) -2- property, the trial court had rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession over the suit property as it was existing on the date of filing of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction and in order to substantiate his possession, plaintiff has placed reliance on the copies of the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari for the year 2004-2005. Plaintiff also placed reliance on the copies of the sale deed and mortgage deed dated 18.9.2006. Plaintiff had filed suit on 27.7.2004. The defendants-petitioners, on the other hand, placed reliance on copies of orders dated 22.6.2010 and 13.5.2010 passed by Additional Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana, respectively to substantiate their plea that they were in possession of the suit property. The orders relied upon by the petitioners were passed during the pendency of the suit. The trial court was required to decide the application for interim injunction on the basis of the documents, placed before it and keeping in view the position as existed at the time of filing of the suit. The entries in the jamabandi and khasra girdawari were prima facie sufficient to establish the factum of possession. The entries in the khasra girdawari, which were changed during the pendency of the suit, were not relevant and could not be taken in consideration while deciding the application for temporary injunction. Presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi. In a suit where both the parties claim possession, the status quo order shall result in more dangerous CR No. 2609 of 2011 (O&M) -3- consequences because the matter would be left in doubt qua possession and causes ambiguity. Invariably, the immediate consequence is that the party, who is not in possession, would attempt to get possession by asserting that he had been in possession already, on the date the status quo order was passed, with a result that there would be a clash between the parties leading to intervention by the police and criminal proceedings. It is generally preferable for the trial court to pass a specific order with regard to the fact as to which of the party is in possession of the suit property. In the present case, both the parties are claiming possession over the suit property and the trial court should have passed a specific order as to which of the party was in possession of the suit property, to avoid further dispute between the parties. In these circumstances, learned District Judge has rightly directed the trial court to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE April 21, 2011 Gurpreet