Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P -1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal and judgment dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P -2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which the application filed by the Respondents -Plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') restraining the Petitioner -Defendant from dispossessing them from the land in dispute except in due course of law during pendency of the suit, was allowed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that a suit for decree of permanent injunction was filed by the Respondents -Plaintiffs against the present Petitioner -Defendant restraining him from interfering in any manner in their peaceful possession of the suit land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint on the plea that they are owner in possession of the land in dispute duly described in the Jamabandi for the year 2004 -05 and Defendant intends to interfere into their possession without any right and to take forcible possession of the suit land from them. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed on behalf of Respondents -Plaintiffs for ad -interim injunction order.
(3.) SUIT as well as the application was contested by the Petitioner -Defendant on the ground that he is in possession of the land in dispute and he has also constructed a house consisting two rooms over the same and he is residing there, whereas, Respondents -Plaintiffs are not residing in the village and they are having no concern with the property in dispute.;