IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 4526 of 2005. Date of Decision: 03rd March, 2008. Rajinder Kaur & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate Versus Gram Panchayat of village Jhamat & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. G.S.Chahal, Advocate. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.7.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby, upon an appeal preferred by the respondent-Gram Panchayat, the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana directing the parties to maintain status- quo regarding possession, has been set aside and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the petitioners in their suit for permanent injunction, has been dismissed. It appears to be the conceded position, as both the courts have also observed that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners entered into permissible possession of the suit land after taking the same on lease from the Gram Panchayat. He, however, continued to retain possession thereof for a long period and until the Gram Panchayat wanted to take possession back, which led to filing of the present suit for permanent injunction. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that once the petitioners (through their predecessor-in-interest) entered the suit land as lessee and the said period has already expired, they can not be permitted to raise the plea that they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The entries in the revenue record prima facie prove the Gram Panchayat's plea regarding ownership over the suit land which is eight acres. There being absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioners have any title or right to retain possession of the suit land after expiry of the lease period, the learned Appellate Court has rightly held that the petitioners have failed to prove all the three basic ingredients for the grant of ad-interim injunction. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. March 03, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE