IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 16.12.2010 C.R.No.8188 of 2010 (O&M) Davinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Pushpinder Khanna and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has sought injunction on the plea that he is in possession of the suit property as a tenant. It has come on record that the Bank has proceeded against the property under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as defendant No.1-the owner was a defaulter. Earlier an application for grant of ad interim injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 01.06.2006. Thereafter, on similar grounds, the petitioner has sought injunction, which was also dismissed by the learned trial Court on 09.01.2008. It is the said order, which has been affirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. District Judge vide order dated 13.10.2010. Since the possession is being taken by the Bank in terms of the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. C.R.No.8188 of 2010 (O&M) In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 16.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2