C.R.No.2361 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2361 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Mahadev .....Petitioner Versus Hoshiyar Singh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The plaintiff has sought for interim injunction before the Wakf Tribunal against two private respondents and the Wakf Board. The injunction had been sought for on the basis that the property had been leased out to the plaintiff in respect of property in Khasra No.526 of an extent of 6 kanals and 3 marlas. The respondents No.1 and 2 had remained ex parte and it was only the 3rd respondent-Wakf Board which entered the contest. There had been an earlier suit by the same plaintiff against the Wakf Board, which went upto High Court that held that a plaintiff cannot be forcibly dispossessed except by due process of law but this judgment in R.S.A. No.1151 of 1983 that went upto High Court specifically held that the plaintiff had not proved his possession with reference to this particular khasra number. C.R.No.2361 of 2004 (O&M) -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, strenuously contended that the revenue entries referred to the plaintiff as being in possession and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted the relief of injunction. Revenue entry is but merely an evidence of possession and would not by itself be conclusive if there is a dispute that is raised by no less a person than the owner of the property itself. The claim of injunction in previous proceeding, which had found that the plaintiff had not shown himself to be in possession, cannot be reopened afresh by a fresh suit for injunction. The decision of the Tribunal suffers from no vice and would, therefore, require no intervention in revision before this Court. 3. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 25, 2009 Pankaj*