IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6351-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision : 11.09.2025 Gram Panchayat, Village Bahramke ...Petitioner Versus Bhag Singh Sandhu and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, and Mr. Nachattar Singh Kanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate, for the Caveator-respondent No.1.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (Oral)

1. Present Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned order 18.08.2025 (Anexure P-8), passed by the Additional District Judge, Moga, partly accepting the appeal against the order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, vide which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), for grant of temporary injunction pending main civil suit, was dismissed.

2. As per the brief facts on record, the respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit (Annexure P-2), seeking decree for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner-defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, bearing Khasra Nos.23//8 (8-0) 14 (8-0), situated at Village Behramke, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga, on the ground that the The plaintiff had made a bid for the suit property, which was accepted for a period of 02 years, i.e. from May 2025 to May 2027 @ Rs.65,000/- per acre per year and further, the plaintiff had paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the Gram Panchayat. It was further contended that the plaintiff was in physical possession over the suit land since May 2025.

2.1 The suit is being contested by the Gram Panchayat and others and a specific plea has been taken in the written statement (Annexure P-3) that the suit land comprising of Khasra No.23//14(8-0) has been earmarked for developing a playground, as per the resolution dated 06.05.2025, whereas, the suit property comprised of Khasra No.23/8(8-0) has been leased out to a third person, namely, Jagdish Singh S/o Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Behramke and this fact has been admitted by the plaintiff in his application submitted to the Police on 04.07.2025.

2.3 The Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, vide order dated 08.08.2025, by holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish all the ingredients for getting relief of temporary injunction.

2.4 However, the First Appellate Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.08.2025, has partly allowed the appeal and restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff qua the suit land illegally and forcibly, except in due course of law, till the final disposal of the case. While granting the said relief, the First Appellate Court observed as under:-

“Even assuming that the plaintiff/appellant is a trespasser or

wrongdoer, his settled possession has to be protected. In other

words, once a person is in settled possession, he is not to be dispossessed otherwise than by legal manner. The plaintiff has no right to get a permanent injunction to prevent his eviction for all times to come, but he cannot be evicted or removed without due process of law. From perusal of the documents produced by the respondents/defendants, appellant/plaintiff is in possession of some portion over the suit property which is admitted fact. It is settled law that merely, because the defendants do not admit the possession of the plaintiff and claim to be in possession, is not sufficient to deny the relief of temporary injunction to the plaintiff particularly in absence of evidence.”

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the paper-book.

6. It is well settled that in order to succeed in his application for grant of temporary injunc