CR No.2739 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2739 of 2004 Date of Decision: 4.08.2009 Karam Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Ram Sarup & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned courts below on an application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). Ram Sarup and others filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming themselves to be owners of the suit property. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that they used to place their cow dung cakes, dry fodder, and other belongings etc. over the suit property. One room also stood constructed by the plaintiff/respondents. It was averred that the petitioner/defendants had no right, title or interest or concern with the suit property. It is also pleaded that now the defendant-petitioners have started interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and want to forcibly CR No.2739 of 2004 2 dispossess them Therefore, the necessity to file a suit for permanent injunction. Notice was issued wherein the petitioners appeared and contested the suit by taking a plea that the suit filed was not maintainable as the plaintiff/respondents have concealed the material facts. It was also asserted that the civil court had already decided the question of ownership qua the suit land, by holding the petitioner/defendant to be the owners of the suit property. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied. In support of the application the plaintiff/respondents placed on record copy of Jamabandi showing that the plaintiffs along with Smt.Ram Piari, Seeto and Gomiti were owners of the suit land and in possession. Khasra girdawaris were also placed on record which also show the possession of the plaintiff/respondents. The judgment relied by petitioners was held to be not related to the suit property. The learned courts below observed that the copy of the judgment showed that the plaintiffs had denied, that the land was part of Khasra No.63/3/2, whereas present suit was qua the land comprised in Khasra No.63/3/2. The learned courts further held that there was no other evidence to connect the suit land with the judgment, relied upon by the defendants and allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the judgment passed by the learned courts below, is the outcome of misreading of pleadings and documents on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to previous judgment inter se between the parties CR No.2739 of 2004 3 wherein learned Additional District Judge, Patiala was pleased to decree the suit filed by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from causing any interference over the suit property shown in the site plan Ex.PD. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the site plan Ex.PD related to khasra No.63/3/2, as it was specific stand taken by the plaintiff/respondents in the previous suit, that the suit property was comprised in khasra No.63/C/3/2 which belonged to their father Budh Ram, who had since died. The plaintiffs who were defendants in the previous suit had claimed that they were owners in peaceful possession of the suit property, which the petitioners herein wanted to take forcibly. Dispute raised in the previous suit was same as the one raised in the present suit and thus, the property in dispute falls in khasra No.63/3/2. Learned courts below, therefore, were not correct in allowing the application moved by the plaintiff/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, as in view of the previous judgment it could not be said that, there was prima facie case, in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. This revision is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The application moved by the plaintiff/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is ordered to be dismissed. However, nothing observed here shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Revision allowed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 4.08.2009 Judge rp