Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate.

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant No.3 Jagtar Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

2. Respondent No.1 plaintiff Rajinder Kumar filed suit against Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased), his sons Didar Singh (defendant-respondent No. 2) and Jagtar Singh (defendant No.3 petitioner) for permanent injunction alleging that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 19.11.1994 and possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff. The agreement was executed by defendant No.2 and was also signed by defendants No.1 and 3 as witnesses. Entire sale consideration was received by defendant No.2. The plaintiff, on the basis of his possession, sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. By moving separate application, plaintiff claimed temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit.

3. Defendants No.1 and 3 contested the suit and the application, whereas defendant No.2 was proceeded ex-parte.

4. Defendants No.1 and 3 pleaded that defendant No.1 is owner of the suit property. However, impugned agreement to sell was denied. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 2 had no authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant No.1, who is owner of the suit land. The plaintiff illegally and forcibly encroached upon the suit land and fabricated the alleged agreement.

5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P1), dismissed the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction. However, appeal against the said order preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide impugned judgment dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P 2) and thereby, defendants have been restrained from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit property and from dispossessing him therefrom during pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 3 has filed this revision petition.

6. Service of respondent No. 2 is dispensed with as he was ex-parte in the trial court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned agreement has been denied by defendants No. 1 and 5, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim possession on the basis of said agreement. It was also contended that suit for permanent injunction alone is not maintainable because the plaintiff has not sought relief of specific performance of the agreement.

9. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 contended that for suit for permanent injunction and for purpose of temporary injunction, question of possession only is to be seen. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Thimmaiah v. Shabira and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 915. It was also contended that prima facie in view of the agreement, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and even defendants No.1 and 3 have admitted possession of plaintiff over the suit land by alleging that he has encroached thereupon, and therefore, temporary injunction has been rightly granted to the plaintiff.

10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

11. Prima facie, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. He has relied on agreement dated 19.11.1994, which was allegedly executed by defendant No. 2 and allegedly signed by defendants No.1 and 3 as witnesses. Moreover. defendants No.1 and 3 have themselves admitted the possession of plaintiff over the suit land by pleading that he has encroached thereupon. Consequently, prima facie, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. However, suit for injunction alone is not maintainable in view of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because the plaintiff had equally efficacious remedy