157 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KALI RAM YADAV MEWA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Mr. respondent Nos.1 to 4. HARKESH MANUJA By way of present revision petition, challenge has been an order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned trial Court whereby, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C defendant was rejected. Briefly stating, the respondent injunction against the petitioner injunction defendants by restraining them from dispossessing, interfering, disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint and further the same and from changing the nature of the suit land. The def No.5 shall also be restrained from sanctioning any mutation or change the revenue record qua the suit land. If the defendants succeeds in dispossessing the plaintif defendants may kind be directed to restore the possession of the plaintiffs. may also be passed in IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: KALI RAM YADAV Versus MEWA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. **** MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present revision petition, challenge has been an order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned trial Court whereby, an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at the instance of petitioner defendant was rejected. Briefly stating, the respondent injunction against the petitioner-defendant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most humbly prayed that a decree for injunction may kindly be passed in favour defendants by restraining them from dispossessing, interfering, disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint and further the same and from changing the nature of the suit land. The def No.5 shall also be restrained from sanctioning any mutation or change the revenue record qua the suit land. If the defendants succeeds in dispossessing the plaintiffs then by way of mandatory injunction the defendants may kind be directed to restore the possession of the plaintiffs. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3723-2024 Date of Decision: February 27, 2026 ........Petitioner ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned trial Court whereby, an C at the instance of petitioner- Briefly stating, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for defendant with the following prayer:- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that a decree for permanent favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants by restraining them from dispossessing, interfering, disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint and further restraining from alienating the same and from changing the nature of the suit land. The def No.5 shall also be restrained from sanctioning any mutation or change the revenue record qua the suit land. If the defendants succeeds in fs then by way of mandatory injunction the defendants may kind be directed to restore the possession of the Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper of plaintiff and against the defendants.” 2024 February 27, 2026 Petitioner to an order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned trial Court whereby, an - filed a suit for permanent of plaintiffs and against the defendants by restraining them from dispossessing, interfering, disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land restraining from alienating the same and from changing the nature of the suit land. The def No.5 shall also be restrained from sanctioning any mutation or change the revenue record qua the suit land. If the defendants succeeds in fs then by way of mandatory injunction the defendants may kind be directed to restore the possession of the Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.06 17:14 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-3723-2024 -2- Upon appearance, the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was opposed at the instance of respondents-plaintiffs. The learned trial Court vide order dated 30.05.2024 dismissed the same. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant on instructions submits that the petitioner shall not disturb the possession of the respondents-plaintiffs over the subject property except by way of execution proceedings in terms of the partition orders passed by the revenue authorities. Faced with this, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that if the petitioner-defendant adheres to the aforesaid statement, even the suit pending before the learned trial Court can be disposed of. In such circumstances, both the counsel submit that in view of the stand taken in the present revision petition, they shall now get their suit disposed of before the learned trial Court. As such, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and the same is thus, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.02.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.06 17:14 I agree to specified portions of this document