Civil Revision No. 2825 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2825 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.10.2009 Bijender Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurbachan Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 11945-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant-petitioner is exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 and P-2 and is permitted to place on record the true true typed copies thereof. CR No. 2825 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/petitioner brought a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of partition of the joint property claiming himself to be co-sharer in the property by way of inheritance from Sh. Darshan Singh predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/petitioner and the defendant/respondents. On notice, the suit was contested on the plea, that the Civil Revision No. 2825 of 2009 (O&M) -2- plaintiff/petitioner has no right or claim in the property left by Sh. Darshan Singh, as it stood sold by way of registered sale deed by late Sh. Darshan Singh himself. It was also the case of the defendant/respondents, that mutation No. 1101, on which reliance was placed by the plaintiff/petitioner, did not depict the correct position, as the property already stood sold by way of registered sale deed. It was held by the learned Courts below, that the plaintiff/petitioner had also given an undertaking regarding receipt of his share in the suit property. The learned Courts, therefore, found that the plaintiff/petitioner did not have prima facie case, nor balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. It was also held that no irreparable loss or injury was likely to be caused to the plaintiff/petitioner, in case, no injunction was granted. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends, that the learned Courts below have wrongly ignored the mutation No. 1101 vide which the property was shown to have been inherited by the plaintiff/petitioner in equal shares with other legal heirs of Sh. Darshan Singh, therefore, in view of the said mutation, plaintiff/petitioner was entitled to injunction, as prima facie case was made out. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law, that mutation confers no title, as sale deed was brought on record to show that mutation did not depict the true partition. The learned Courts below were right in rejecting the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not call for any Civil Revision No. 2825 of 2009 (O&M) -3- interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. However, nothing stated above be taken as expression of opinion on merits of the case. (Vinod K. Sharma) October 08, 2009 Judge R.S.