Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - By this judgment two revision petitions bearing C.R. No.1186 of 2013 and C.R. No.1194 of 2013 shall be disposed of.

2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of the plot in dispute as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any type of construction over the said plot.

3. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed for interim injunction before the trial Court and the trial Court finding disputed question of fact of possession and ordered status quo. An appeal was filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 03.12.2012.

4. Petitioner-defendant has approached this Court by way of filing present revision petition to challenge order dated 03.12.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala on the ground that petitioner is in possession of the suit property and the sale deed in favour of respondent was sham transactions just to defeat the right of the petitioner. Respondent never remained in possession as owner of the property and he was attorney of Gurdial Singh, who earlier filed a suit for injunction against Narinderpal Singh, Surjit Kaur and one more but the interim application filed in that suit was declined. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by recording a wrong finding as prima-facie case is in favour of the petitioner and balance of convenience is also in his favour as is clear from finding recorded by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court without recording any finding as to how the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession over the plot land in dispute since long and he prays that petitioner be allowed to raise construction over the plot at his own risk so that he can enjoy the property which belongs to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Bhupesh Mangal vs. Dr. Ravi Chander Mangla, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 657 as well as judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Narottam vs. Geeta Devi & Ors., 2011 AIR (Raj) 60 wherein construction was allowed at own risk and responsibility subject to the outcome of the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was earlier in possession and he raised boundary wall also but subsequently, his construction was demolished by the petitioner and after that suit for possession was filed. The order passed by the First Appellate Court is self-speaking, which does not require any interference by this Court.

Continued this next issue 33 & 34 P&H

Sharanjit Singh v. Raghu Nath

7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala as well as order passed by the trial Court.

8. Admittedly, the trial Court decided the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by recording a finding that both the parties are claiming possession as well as title over the plot in dispute by way of registered sale deeds and it is difficult for the Court to reach to the conclusion as to which of the party is in possession over the suit property. Accordingly, status quo was ordered by the trial Court. The present petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the trial Court and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2012, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petitions.

9. Apart from arguing on merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his prayer for allowing to raise construction over the plot in dispute at his own risk and responsibility and he undertakes not to claim anything and construction would be subject t