CR-4146-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4146-2026 Date of decision: 02.07.2026 Gram Panchayat and another ...Pe oners Versus Jitender Singh @ Jitender and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the pe oners. Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the respondents - caveators. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present civil revision pe on has been filed under Ar cle 227 of the Cons tu on of India assailing the judgment dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Addi onal District Judge, Sonipat, whereby the appeal preferred by the pe oners-defendants under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC was dismissed and the order dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat gran ng temporary injunc on in favour of the plain ff was affirmed. 2. The respondent-plain ff ins tuted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunc on alleging that he is in se>led possession of the suit land and that the defendants are threatening to dispossess him forcibly besides leasing out the land by public auc on. Along with the suit, an applica on under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking interim protec on. 3. The learned Trial Court, a?er considering the material placed on record, granted temporary injunc on restraining the defendants from interfering in the plain ff's possession, dispossessing him otherwise than in YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4146-2026 [2] due course of law and leasing out the suit property during pendency of the suit. The appeal preferred there-against has also been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the pe oners contends that the plain ff has no tle over the suit land, which belongs to the Gram Panchayat. It is submi>ed that the land already stands auc oned in favour of another person and, therefore, the Courts below have commi>ed grave illegality in restraining the Gram Panchayat from exercising its lawful rights over its own property. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the pe oners and have gone through the record. 6. The scope of interference by this Court under Ar cle 227 of the Cons tu on against an interlocutory order gran ng temporary injunc on is extremely limited. The power of superintendence is intended to ensure that subordinate Courts act within the bounds of their jurisdic on. Unless the discre on exercised by the Courts below is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, capricious or based upon a patent misapplica on of law, this Court would not subs tute its own discre on merely because another view may also be possible. 7. It is equally well se>led that while deciding an applica on under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case exists, where the balance of convenience lies and whether refusal of interim relief would result in irreparable injury. At such stage, the Court is not expected to finally determine disputed ques ons rela ng to tle or ownership. 8. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that both the Courts below have primarily proceeded on the basis of the revenue record, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4146-2026 [3] wherein the predecessor-in-interest of the plain ff is shown to be con nuously in possession of the suit land for several decades. The learned First Appellate Court has no ced that the revenue entries reflec ng such possession have con nued from the Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 onwards and that no material has been produced to show that such entries have been set aside or displaced in accordance with law. 9. Whether such possession ul mately confers any legal right upon the plain ff or whether the Gram Panchayat is en tled to recover possession are issues which necessarily require adjudica on a?er evidence is led by the par es. At the interlocutory stage, however, the con nuous revenue entries cons tute sufficient prima facie material for the Courts below to examine the ques on of se>led possession. 10. The law is equally se>led that se>led possession, even in the absence of perfected tle, deserves protec on against forcible dispossession. No person, including the true owner, can take law into his own hands and dispossess a person in se>led possession except by following the procedure established by law. If ul mately the pe oners establish a be>er tle or lawful en tlement to possession, nothing prevents them from recovering possession in accordance with law. However, un l such adjudica on takes place, maintenance of status quo serves the ends of jus ce and prevents breach of peace. 11. The conten on that the land has already been auc oned by the Gram Panchayat also does not persuade this Court to interfere. Such auc on, even if proved, cannot by itself authorise dispossession of a person, who claims se>led possession otherwise than through due process of law. Equally, the validity and legal effect of the alleged auc on are ma>ers which shall be examined by the Trial Court while deciding the suit YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4146-2026 [4] on merits. 12. This Court, however, finds it appropriate to clarify that certain observa ons made by the learned First Appellate Court touching upon the correctness of the auc on proceedings and the rights of the par es are only prima facie in nature. The learned Trial Court shall independently appreciate the pleadings and evidence without being influenced by any observa ons made in the impugned orders or in the present order. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, no jurisdic onal error, perversity or patent illegality is discernible in the concurrent discre onary orders passed by the Courts below so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdic on under Ar cle 227 of the Cons tu on of India. 14. Consequently, the present revision pe on is dismissed. 15. It is, however, clarified that all observa ons made by the Courts below as well as in this order are confined only to adjudica on of the applica on under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit, which shall be decided independently on the basis of the evidence adduced by the par es. 16. Pending miscellaneous applica on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 02.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.03 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document