Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 228/2 Civil Revision No.4774 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 8 .1.2014 Gursanjogat Singh ......petitioner Versus Madanjit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.S.Saini, Advocate for Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the respondents.
**** SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed challenging order dated 18.1.2012 (Annexure P-2) and 2.6.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Courts below, whereby, application moved by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) was allowed.
I have learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in his peaceful possession on the suit property.
Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed.
Petitioner and respondent filed civil suit No.144/94 for declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in Devi Anita question.
The said suit was decreed to the effect that the petitioner 2014.01.13 16:03 I am approving this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4774 of 2012(O&M) -2- and respondent being co-sharers were in exclusive possession of the suit property and defendants Swaran Kaur and Gurjit Singh were restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner and respondent.
Learned trial Court, while allowing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, vide order dated 18.1.2012 (Annexure P-2) has observed that in the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2001, there was no reference to the exchange deed dated 7.11.1994.
Further mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the respondent on the basis of exchange deed dated 7.11.1994 and the same was incorporated in the revenue record.
In these circumstances, respondent had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour.
The trial Court had, thus, rightly allowed the application moved by the respondent for temporary injunction vide the impugned order and the same had been rightly upheld by the Appellate Court.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 08, 2014 anita Devi Anita 2014.01.13 16:03 I am approving this document Chandigarh