CR No.6601 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6601 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.2.2011 Bishamber Singh ...Petitioner Versus Bharawan Bai and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.MS Rai, Advocate for the petitioner *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide which appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Fazilka vide which application filed under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') by respondent Nos. 1 to 3- plaintiffs was allowed, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3- plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 CR No.6601 of 2010 2 and 5 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land in dispute. It was alleged that earlier Jalla Singh husband of Bharawan Bai and father of Mangat Singh and Bishamber Singh was cultivating the land in dispute for the last so many years. After death of Jalla Singh, respondent Nos.1 to 3- plaintiffs inherited the tenancy rights and started cultivating the land in question, whereas, petitioner-defendants were having no concern. On similar facts, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was filed for ad -interim injunction order. Suit as well as injunction application were contested by the present petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Application was allowed by learned trial court vide order dated 6.10.2009 by observing as under: “4. As can be recapitulated from above noted brief facts of the case, both the parties to suit claim themselves to be in possession of the suit land. While the entries in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari prima facie lend support to the case of the applicants as in the said documents, Jalla Singh predecessor in interest of the applicants is recorded to be in possession of the suit land, there is nothing on the record in the shape of any document whatsoever, to even prima facie establish the possession of the defendants or anyone of them. Simple assertion of the defendants that they have already filed an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari qua the suit land, cannot in any manner be said to be sufficient to CR No.6601 of 2010 3 rebut the presumption of truthness attached to the entries made in the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. Thus, on the basis of material available on the record in the shape of copies of revenue record, the plaintiffs-applicants, in my view have been successful in establishing their prima facie possession of the suit land being the successors in interest and having stepped into the the shoes of Shri Jalla Singh whose name is duly reflected in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaries to be in possession of the suit property. Consequently, finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the applicants, I am of the considered view that their application for the grant of ad- interim injunction deserves to be allowed. 5. In view of all that has been discussed above the application of the plaintiff-applicants succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. An ad-interim injunction thereby restraining the respondents from causing any sort of interference and /or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land measuring 18 Kanals bearing Rect. No.47 Killa Nos. 6(8-0), 7/1(1-0), 4/2(1-0), 5(8-0), Khewat Nos.115, 116 Khatauni No.246/234 and 442/444 as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 situated in the area of village Walleyshah Hithar, HB No.316, Tehsil Fazilka, is hereby granted in favour of the applicants and against the CR No.6601 of 2010 4 respondents till the disposal of suit. However, before parting with, it is made clear that nothing said or observed hereinabove shall have any effect and be not construed as an expression of mind on the merits of the case.” The present petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned order dated 5.4.2010. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application for correction of Khasra Girdwari has already been filed by the petitioner-defendants, which is still pending. It is also contended that an FIR was also lodged against Bishamber Singh present petitioner and others at the instance of Bharawan Bai -respondent No.1 and that during investigation, statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the Investigating Officer and that Harbans Singh has made a statement that Bishamber Singh present petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute. Law is well settled that at this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact that as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to respondent Nos.1 to 3 -plaintiffs if ad interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. Both the courts below had taken into consideration the entries made in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaries, which are having presumption of truth on the point that respondent No.1 to 3-plaintiffs are recorded to be in possession of the land in dispute. Moreover, as per own case of the present petitioner, application for correction of Khasra CR No.6601 of 2010 5 Girdawari is still pending and the same has not been decided so far. At this stage, some statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not sufficient to rebut the entries made in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaries. Both the courts below, prima facie, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 to 3 -plaintiffs are in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the entries made in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaries. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil), 147 by Hon'ble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This court can interfere only when error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. February 24, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE