Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral): - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal and judgment dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the application filed by the respondents-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity ‘the Code’) restraining the petitioner-defendant from dispossessing them from the land in dispute except in due course of law during pendency of the suit, was allowed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below.

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that a suit for decree of permanent injunction was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs against the present petitioner-defendant restraining him from interfering in any manner in their peaceful possession of the suit land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint on the plea that they are owner in possession of the land in dispute duly described in the Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 and defendant intends to interfere into their possession without any right and to take forcible possession of the suit land from them. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed on behalf of respondents-plaintiffs for ad-interim injunction order.

4. Suit as well as the application was contested by the petitioner defendant on the ground that he is in possession of the land in dispute and he has also constructed a house consisting two rooms over the same and he is residing there, whereas, respondents-plaintiffs are not residing in the village and they are having no concern with the property in dispute.

5. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of both the parties, decided the application in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs vide impugned order dated 8.9.2009 by observing as under:-

“8. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have a prima-facie case in their favour. As the revenue record is in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant has not been able to produce any document in order to prove his possession over the suit property, even the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs. For the same reason the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss in case the injunction is not granted to them. Therefore, the application for temporary injunction moved by the plaintiffs is allowed and the defendant is, hereby, restrained from interfering in any manner into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, detailed in para No.1(1) to 1(d) of the plaint, either by dispossessing the plaintiffs or otherwise.”

6. Appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant against the said order, has been dismissed by learned appellate court vide judgment dated 18.12.2009 by observing as under:-

“9. From the jamabandis of the year 2004-05 produced on record of the learned lower court alongwith the pleadings, it transpires that plaintiffs-respondents have been recorded as owners in possession over the suit land as pleaded in Para No.1(a) to (d) of the plaint. The presumption of truth attaches to the entries incorporated in the revenue record particularly in the jamabandis. Although this presumption is rebuttable, but that stage would arrive only when evidence in this case would be led before the learned lower court. The entries recorded in the revenue record particularly in the jamabandis certainly form an acceptable base, while adjudicating upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Contrary thereto defendant -appellant has also relied upon some certificates issued by the Sarpanch of