IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7914 of 2010 Date of Decision : 6.12.2010 Balvir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Sunrise Dhawan ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff, has filed a suit alleging that he is in possession of the suit property qua one of the portions of the property. He alleges an agreement to sell in his favour whereas qua rest of the property he has been unable to show as to what is his right on the said property. If the plea of the petitioner is to be examined then it transpires that the petitioner obviously has no right to the property as against the right of the respondent who prima facie is the owner of the property as he had purchased the same from the daughters of the erstwhile owner. Mere agreement to sell does not confer any title and the plea that the petitioner had been taking care of the property and is thus in possession of the same cannot be accepted C.R.No.7914 of 2010 -2- as the Court is always required to see that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and balance of convenience also exists in his favour, and that irreparable loss would be caused to him in the eventuality of the injunction not granted to him. In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to show his legitimate possession on the property as against the case of the respondent, who has a registered sale deed in his favour, I am of the opinion that the discretion vested in Court to exercise the powers under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been judiciously exercised and does not warrant any interference. Dismissed. 6.12.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss