IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.R. No.7062 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.11.2010 Sohan Lal .....Petitioner Vs. Raj Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendant's' revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby while accepting the appeal against the order of trial Court passed in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 in a suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff- respondent No.1, ad-interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff- respondent restraining the petitioner- defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff- respondent from the property in dispute illegally and forcibly except in due course of law during the pendency of the suit. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in fact, plaintiff- respondent has failed to produce any evidence to show that he is in rightful possession of the property in question and, thus, there was no prima-facie case in his favour and that the documents taken into consideration by the lower appellate court could not have been taken into consideration and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be C.R. No.7062 of 2010 (O&M) -2- set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the documents placed on record of the case. Admittedly, the plaintiff- respondent is in possession of the suit property. The question whether he is in rightful possession or in illegal possession can be determined only by taking evidence in the suit. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order whereby the lower appellate court has restrained the appellant from dispossessing the plaintiff- respondent illegally and forcibly except in due course of law during the pendency of the case. Moreover, proper safeguard has been taken by the lower appellate court while granting the aforesaid order in favour of the plaintiff- respondent by making it clear that the plaintiff- respondent shall conclude his evidence within three months from the date of receipt of the file in the trial Court, failing which injunction order shall cease to exist. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. November 26, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE