CR No.3706 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.3706 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 29, 2012 Bhagirath & others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. * * * * PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing orders of both the courts below declining plaintiffs' prayer for temporary injunction. Plaintiffs alleged that they are owners in possession of the suit land, which is part of Khasra No.935. Plaintiffs' predecessor Arjan Singh purchased the suit land from Devender on 16.04.1982, but in the sale deed, Khasra Nos. 941 and 943 were mentioned instead of Khasra No.935. Plaintiffs claimed temporary injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from suit land till final decision of the suit. Defendant No.1-State of Haryana alleged that it is owner in CR No.3706 of 2010 -2- possession of Khasra Nos.935/1 and 935/2. Plaintiffs have encroached upon suit land of defendant No.1. Decree in previous suit filed by plaintiffs' predecessor relates to Khasra No.941. Land of Khasra No.935/6 was given by custodian to Municipal Committee-defendant No.2 for development of park. Plaintiffs' predecessor purchased land of Khasra Nos.941 and 943 and not of Khasra No.935. Defendant No.2 also broadly took the same stand. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.10.2008 Annexure P-1 dismissed the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the same by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2010 Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners contended that Khasra No.935/6 was allotted to Shiv Kumar and Devender in partition proceedings and defendants have no right, title or interest therein and, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to temporary injunction qua the same. The contention cannot be accepted. Plaintiffs' predecessor Arjan Singh purchased land of Khasra Nos.941 and 943. Decree in previous suit filed by Arjan Singh was also regarding land of Khasra No.941. There is nothing on record to depict that plaintiffs have any right title or interest in the land of Khasra No.935. The plaintiffs even in the plaint have vaguely pleaded that suit land is part of Khasra No.935 without further pleading as to which Sub-Khara number comprises the suit land because admittedly Khasra No.935 has many Sub-Khasra numbers. It has not been pleaded that suit land is part of Khasra No.935/6 as now sought to be argued. When the plaintiffs have prima facie no right, title or interest in the CR No.3706 of 2010 -3- suit land or in any part of Khasra No.935, they are not entitled to temporary injunction, irrespective of whether defendants have any right, title or interest in the suit land or not. For the reasons aforesaid, plaintiffs are not entitled to temporary injunction. Accordingly plaintiffs' prayer for temporary injunction has been rightly declined by the Courts below. Impugned order of the courts below, therefore, do not suffer from any infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error calling for interference in exercise of revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 29.02.2012 'raj'