C.R. No.4571 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4571 of 1994 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009 Biru Ram and others .....Petitioners Versus Manjit Singh ....Respondent Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The matter has been identified in Samadhan 2009 for an early disposal of the civil revision on the ground that by virtue of an interim order passed, the trial of the suit has been stayed. I notice that the suit is of the year 1992 and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 had been filed along with the suit. The case is being pending for the last 17 years and the pendency of the case before this Court has contributed to the delay. There is no representation of either side and I proceed to dispose of the case by inspection of the records. 2. The plaintiff's claim for injunction was based on the revenue entries relating to the suit property, which is a piece of agricultural land. The contention of the plaintiff relating to his possession was sought to be proved by the Rojnamcha Entry dated 05.11.1991 that made reference to three persons S/Sh. Nikka, Phula and Lal Chand. The entry made reference to delivery of possession to Ram Singh and C.R. No.4571 of 1994 -2- Inderjit Singh. There was a further entry dated 14.07.1992 in the Rojnamcha Waqyati of the Patwari that Dharam Singh and Inderjit Singh had delivered possession of the property measuring 22 bighas 18 biswas to Manjit Singh through his attorney Gurpreet Singh. Manjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh are the plaintiffs who sought, by means of an interlocutory application, for permanent injunction. 3. The defendants who were contesting the case under the injunction application did not set up possession in themselves but contended that Nikka, Phula and Lal Chand had not delivered possession and they had themselves filed a suit against the defendant, which they later withdrew. The trial Court on the basis of the revenue entries found that there was prima facie case of possession and granted the relief of injunction and in the appeal filed by the defendants, the Appellate Court held that the defendants themselves were not claiming possession but they were setting up possession in the hands of three persons Nikka and two others referred to above. The Appellate Court observed that it was not even the contention that the suit filed by three persons against the defendants was still pending or that the defendants were at any point of time shown to be in possession of property. The Appellate Court found no reason to interfere with the directions of the trial Court. 4. The revision petition is against that order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and disallowing the claim for vacating the same when an appeal was filed by the defendants. The trial Court and Appellate Court have considered the issue from the prima facie material available to show that the petitioners were in C.R. No.4571 of 1994 -3- possession of property and there was no document to evidence that the defendants were in possession. There is no error in jurisdiction or illegality in the orders to be susceptible for intervention in revision under Section 151 CPC. 5. The revision is without merit and it is dismissed. The interim stay already granted shall stand vacated and having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 1992, it is requested that the trial Court gives priority in disposal of the case and conclude the trial and deliver the judgment within a period of six months from the date of receipt of records. The Court shall also report to this Court about the conclusion of the trial and the judgment. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 04, 2009 Pankaj*