CR No. 6124 of 2001

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No. 6124 of 2001

Date of decision:- 2.12.2010

G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Ltd.

......petitioner

vs.

Dan Singh and ors

......respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: -

Ms. Shriya Chahar Panjeta, Advocate

for the petitioner

HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL)

Defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by

learned First Appellate Court on 22.9.2001, whereby the defendant was

restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit

land till the decision of the suit except in due course of law.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction challenging

the exchange whereby the defendant got exchanged their land on 19.4.1999

with Tej Ram. Thus, the defendant claimed right over the suit property. In

the said suit, plaintiffs filed an application for ad interim injunction as well,

which was declined by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has

returned a finding that the jamabandi entry for the year 1992-1992

recorded, Ganga Ram and Radhey as Gair Marusi tenant stands rebutted by

the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs is not entitled to ad interim

injunction.

However, learned First Appellate Court returned a finding that

from the jamabandi for the year 1961-1962, Ganga Ram is reflected as a

person in possession. Plaintiffs-respondents are the legal heirs of Ganga

CR No. 6124 of 2001

-2-

Ram and therefore, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land by way of

inheritance being heirs of Ganga Ram and Radhey.

The revision petition came up for hearing before this Court on

20.11.2001 against the order of the learned First Appellate Court. This

Court passed an order directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding

possession. The same has been in operation since then.

The findings recorded by learned First Appellate Court is that

the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property being Gair Marusi tenant.

Such finding cannot be said to be patently illegal and unwarranted. Still

further the order of status quo granted by this Court has remained in

operation. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order

passed by learned first Appellate Court.

Thus, the revision is disposed of with the direction to the

learned trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

JUDGE

2.12.2010

preeti