Civil Revision No. 5217 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5217 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.1.2009 Nepal Singh and others ..... Petitioners vs Ashok Kumar and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Munish Soni, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by respondents/plaintiffs against the order passed by the trial court in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioners/defendants have been restrained from changing the nature of the suit property. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act claiming that they had been forcibly dispossessed from the suit land on which they were continuing as gair marusi tenants. The trial court dismissed the prayer for interim injunction with the opinion that the suit itself was not maintainable in terms of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court taking the other view on the maintainability of the suit restrained the petitioners only from changing the nature of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the suit was not maintainable, there is no question of interim injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. He further submitted that the discussion made by the learned Lower Appellate Court on the merits of the controversy regarding the maintainability of the suit shall affect the final disposal of the suit by the trial court. However, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As regards the maintainability of the suit. It is only tentative opinion formed by the court. The issue is to be considered at the time of final disposal of the suit, after the evidence is led by the parties. It is settled law that nothing said in the order passed in an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC shall have any affect on the final judgment of the court. As far as the interim injunction is concerned, the Court has merely restrained the petitioners from changing the nature of the suit land. The Civil Revision No. 5217 of 2008 (2) claim in the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is for possession claiming themselves to be gair marusi tenants thereon who had allegedly been forcibly dispossessed. Keeping in view the prayer made by the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit, the interim injunction granted by the learned Lower Appellate Court cannot be faulted with. The petition is dismissed. 27.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge