IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CR-3870-2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS …..PETITIONERS Vs. JASWANT AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the peoners. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this revision filed under Arcle 227 of the Constuon of India, peoner assails the order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kharkhoda dismissing the applicaon under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, in civil suit N: CS-147 of 2022 tled ‘Dharampal & others vs. Jaswant & Others’. Peoner further assails the order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by Addional District Judge, Sonipat dismissing the appeal against order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the peoner has been heard at considerable length. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that peoners-plainffs were recorded to be in possession of the suit land in the revenue record and therefore, the Courts below were not jusfied in refusing to grant temporary injuncon in their favour ll pendency of the suit. It is also urged that appointment of receiver by the trial Court to take possession of the suit property, was also not jusfied. 4. This Court has gone through the paper book and find the contenons raised by learned counsel to be devoid of any merit. PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3870-2025 5. As observed by the Courts below, plainffs i.e. peoners herein claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of 3/4 share and alleged interference in their possession on the part of the respondents-defendants. On the other hand, the stand of the defendants was that all the legal heirs of Chunni Lal had inherited the Dholidar rights in the suit land and as such, A<ar Singh and Ajit, predecessors-in-interest of the defendants were also entled to the suit property, being sons of Chunni Lal, but plainffs being the heirs of Ved Pal (one of the sons of Chunni Lal ) had succeeded in obtaining an order dated 14.01.2014 by concealing the fact that defendants and others were also legal heirs of Chunni Lal. Two of the plainffs being patwari had succeeded in ge>ng the revenue entries recorded in their favour. Apart from this, Civil Suit bearing tled Jaswant etc. Vs Dharampal challenging the order dated 14.01.2014 passed by the Collector and also challenging the mutaons of inheritance of Chunni Lal; and also that of Ved Pal, the father of the plainffs, was pending. 6. The Courts below further observed that in peon No.115/DRO tled Dharampal Vs. Gram Panchayat, plainffs themselves had pleaded that Chunni Lal was Dholidar in the suit land and so, aAer his death, his succession will go to all his children in view of Secon 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 7. In the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the trial Court, declining the interim injuncon. The trial Court found it fit in the circumstances to appoint a receiver to take possession of the land and to get the same culvated under the supervision of BDPO, Kharkhoda. 8. The order passed by the Appellate Court further indicates that receiver has already taken the possession and deposited the sale proceeds of the crops harvested on the suit land and as such, appellants will not suffer irreparable loss of any kind, as the same will be compensated in shape of money, in case they are able to prove their case. Page 2 of 3 PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3870-2025 9. The relief of granng or refusing temporary injuncon is discreonary in nature, though the said discreon is to be exercised on the well-established principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The Appellate Court is not to interfere in the exercise of the discreon by the trial Court and to substute the same by its own discreon, unless the order of the trial Court is arbitrary, perverse, capricious or in disregard of the sound legal principles or without considering the relevant record. Simply because Appellate Court comes to a different conclusion on the same facts or evidence, cannot jusfy an interference. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of present case, Appellate Court has rightly declined to interfere in the discreon exercised by the trial Court. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the well-reasoned order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Judge, Sonipat, affirming the order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) of the trial Court, in the absence of any illegality or perversity. 11. As such, holding the peon to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. 04.07.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No p. 3 PRIYANKA 2025.07.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document