IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.322 of 2009 . Date of decision:- 21.01.2009. Krishan ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Bimla Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) Petitioner-plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the orders dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tohana under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC whereby his prayer for interim injunction to restrain the respondents- defendants from interfering in his possession of the suit land was declined; as also the order dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned District Judge, Fatehabad whereby his appeal was also dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to the effect that he is a tenant over the suit land detailed in the plaint measuring 32 kanal 4 marla on 1/3rd Batai and the respondents- defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession except in due course of law. After filing reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the learned trial Court vide Annexure P-1 has declined the interim injunction on the ground that the plaintiff, for his Civil Revision No.322 of 2009 -2- possession, was relying only on the entries in the nahri girdawari; whereas the defendants in the revenue record were shown as owners-in-possession. Thus, it was found that the three ingredients namely; prima facie case; balance of convenience; irreperable loss were not made out in favour of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by observing that the petitioner-plaintiff has himself admitted in para No.5 of the plaint that entries in the revenue record qua the suit land shows the self-cultivation of the owners-defendants, which entry as per his assertion, is against the factual position at the spot and against which he has moved an application for correction of the revenue record, which is admittedly pending before A.C.-II Grade, Tohana. In view of the admitted position regarding the revenue record being in favour of respondents No.1 and 2-defendants, the petitioner-plaintiff was non-suited for interim injunction. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I find no legal infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below while exercising discretion against the plaintiff- petitioner, so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. January 21, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE