Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21550 = 2026:PHHC:080066
Decided on: 21.05.2026
Present:
Mr. Satwant Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
Temporary Injunction – Plaintiff’s reliance on jamabandi entries to claim possession as a village proprietor, while denying his recorded status as a chakotedar and failing to establish payment of recorded rent, rendered his claim prima facie doubtful and justified dismissal of the application for temporary injunction.
***
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Possession – Revenue Records – Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Gram Panchayat from interfering with his alleged possession over the suit land, claiming possession as a village proprietor on the basis of ancestral possession and revenue entries – Jamabandi for 1986–87 recorded annual chakota of Rs.5,600, but the plaintiff failed to establish payment of rent or substantiate his claim of possession as a proprietor rather than a chakotedar coupled with doubtful revenue entries – Dismissal of the application for temporary injunction by the Courts below was justified; no interference warranted.
(Para 5-8)
***
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) –
Present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved by order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur whereby his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction was dismissed and also by order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar whereby appeal preferred by petitioner-plaintiff against order dated 21.08.2025 was also dismissed.
2. In the present case, petitioner-plaintiff had sought permanent injunction seeking to restrain respondent-defendant from interfering illegally and forcibly in the actual physical and peaceful possession over the land measuring 20 kanal 19 marla as detailed in the plaint.
3. It was asserted that suit land is ‘Shamlat Deh’ land i.e. “Shamlat Patti Khalsa Hasab Hissa Khewat’ and he is in possession of the suit land being proprietor of the village from the time of his ancestors and his name is duly recorded as such in the revenue record. It is asserted that respondent-defendant is trying to dispossess him illegally from the suit land and he had accordingly, sought interim injunction during the pendency of his suit against the respondent-defendant.
4. Respondent-Defendant had duly contested the suit by filing detailed written statement wherein it took number of preliminary objections as regards to maintainability etc. It was asserted that suit land is owned and possessed by respondent-defendant and for last many years it is being given on lease to different persons. It was asserted that in the column of cultivation in the jamabandi and girdawari wrong entries were recorded in the name of petitioner-plaintiff and respondent-defendant had already preferred application for correction of revenue records which is pending adjudication. It is asserted that petitioner-plaintiff is not in possession of suit property and is trying to take advantage of wrong entries made in revenue records. Dismissal of suit as well as application for interim injunction was prayed for.
5. Both the Courts after considering respective contentions of the parties concluded that the entries made in jamabandi in the favour of petitioner-plaintiff are prima facie wrong as there is no prima facie evidence as regards to payment of rent/chakota as recorded in the revenue record. During the course of arguments of present petition also, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff by referring to jamabandi for the year 1986-87 had admitted that chakota for land was duly mentioned in jamabandi as Rs.5,600/- per annum. In subsequent jamabandies entries, the amount of chakota is missing in the present case. This fact goes to show that prima facie it was respondent-defendant which was leasing out the suit property to different persons, therefore, the rate of rent was shown in jamabandi.
6. It was incumbent upon petitioner-plaintiff to prima facie show that he had been paying the rent fixed as shown in jamabandies. Rather in the present case, the case of petitioner-plaintiff is that he is in possession since time of his ancestors as a proprietor of village and he is not claiming his possession to be that of Chakotedar as was mentioned in revenue record. Thus, petitioner-plaintiff is placing reliance upon entries made in revenue record, but he is claiming his possession as proprietor of the village which prima facie shows that this plea is only to grab the respondent-defendant’s property on the basis of wrong entries.
7. Therefore, in the present case, petitioner-plaintiff has prima facie failed to prove his possession over the suit property and therefore, both the Courts have rightly dismissed his application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908. The observations made above are prima facie observations only for the purpose to decide present revision petition. There is no merit in the present revision petition, hence dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
Petition dismissed.
********