BHOOP SINGH Vs. MANGAL RAM.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anil Kshetarpal, J 1. The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

(2.) The petitioners are defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed during the pendency of the suit has been allowed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendants has also been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Both the Courts have concurrently found that prima facie the plaintiff has proved his uninterrupted possession on the land for more than last 50 years. The plaintiff in order to prove his possession has produced revenue record from the year 1952 and onwards.

(3.) The learned counsel representing the petitioners contend that the defendants (petitioners herein) claim to be in possession and have also filed an application for correction of the revenue record therefore, the Court should have ordered the parties to maintain the status-quo.