IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4790 of 2005 Date of Decision: 13.7.2009 Gurtej Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus Gurinder Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amanjit Singh, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the orders dated 6.8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners and dated 20.7.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed. The Additional District Judge, Patiala while affirming the findings recorded by the trial court on the injunction application has observed as under:- “The copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99 shows that the contesting defendants have executed CR No. 4790 of 2005 -2- number of sale deeds of small plots in favour of large number of people after the execution of agreement in their favour. The plaintiffs unscrupulously omitted to mention all these sale deeds and challenged only 3 sale deeds. The agreement in favour of Poonam Sharma shows that she paid Rs.2 lacs and she was also to clear the liability of the vendors before the bank. The agreement by Tarlochan Singh and Gurtej Singh in favour of the vendees dated 24.5.2001 shows that on the similar terms an agreement was executed and Rs.11 lacs were received by the vendors. The remaining amount was to be paid to the bank to clear the loan liability of the vendors. The possession was delivered to the vendees. Accordingly, special power of attorneys were also executed in favour of the vendees. In pursuance of those power of attorneys, sale deeds of small plots numbering 35 had been executed. In this way, from the agreement itself it is clear that the plaintiffs parted with the possession of the suit property. They have not come to the court with clean hands. They have not challenged the large number of other sale deeds executed by the vendees in favour of several persons. The defendants have also placed on file the bank statement for showing that they have paid about CR No. 4790 of 2005 -3- Rs.45 lacs to the bank to clear the loan liabilities of the vendors. In this way, balance of convenience is also in favour of the contesting defendants. No prima facie case in favour of plaintiffs is made out.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper-book, I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 13, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE