PURSHOTAM DASS Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by petitioner against the order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated 9th February, 1987, confirming the order of the trial Court granting adinterim injunction.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. In the suit they also filed an application for ad-interim injunction against him. The trial Court granted the ad interim injunction. In appeal the order of the trial Court was affirmed. The defendant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was in possession of the land and consequently the ad interim injunction should not have been issued. I have duly considered the arguments. Both the Courts below concurrently; came to the conclusion after taking into consideration the documents filed on the record that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and consequently the ad interim injunction was granted to them. In revision I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.