Civil Revision No.519 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.519 of 2009
Date of Decision:-July 28,2009
Hardeep Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Hans Raj and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest?
Present: Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral):
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
18.1.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Karnal, whereby ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioner-
defendant from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession
of the respondent-plaintiffs over a piece of land in dispute has been
granted, as well as against the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing the petitioner’s appeal
against the above mentioned injunction order.
The respondent-plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent
injunction, inter-alia, claiming that they are in possession of the plot
Civil Revision No.519 of 2009 2
measuring 31.66 square yards, which they have purchased vide sale
deed No.332/1 dated 18.5.2004 for a consideration of Rs.2,60,000/-.
The description of the plot situated in village Nissing, District Karnal
is duly mentioned in the sale deed itself.
On the other hand, the petitioner-defendant has asserted
himself to be owner in possession as, according to him, the plot in
dispute forms part of the land allotted by the Rehabilitation
Department to their predecessor-in-interest Sohan Singh vide order
dated 26.3.1950.
It may be noticed here that the defendant-petitioner has
also filed a civil suit, in which Hans Raj and others plaintiffs are also
arrayed as defendants. The petitioner sought injunction against the
present respondent-plaintiffs etc. but the same was declined by the
trial Court and the appellate Court.
On the other hand, the trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court have relied upon the report of the Local
Commissioner and granted injunction in favour of the respondent-
plaintiffs as they are claiming title over the suit land on the basis of a
registered sale deed.
Relying upon some photographs appended with this
revision petition, the petitioner contends that the respondent-plaintiffs
are not in possession of the plot in dispute and it is for this reason
that they have sought police help also.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any merit in this revision
petition. Both the Courts below have concurrently observed that the
Civil Revision No.519 of 2009 3
respondent-plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case and balance
of convenience is also in their favour. Similarly, in the event of their
forcible dispossession, the respondent-plaintiffs will suffer irreparable
loss also as they have been found in possession of the plot in
dispute.
It is well settled that, a revisional Court cannot interfere in
an ad-interim injunction matter even if a different opinion can be
found on the basis of the material on record. No interference is called
for in the impugned orders.
Dismissed.
(Surya Kant)
Judge
28.7.2009
AS