JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.:- Bishan Kumar filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of Shop No.5, outside Hall Gate, Amritsar, averring that the said shop was allotted and possession was handed over to his late father, Chaman Lal. On the death of Chaman Lal, he claimed the property on the basis of a will dated 21.7.1992. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that the conveyance deed of the said shop dated 18.8.1980 in favour of Roshan Lal be set-aside being null and void. Roshan Lal, who is brother of Chaman Lal, is stated to have got this conveyance deed issued by playing fraud and mis-representation with the Department in connivance with the officials of the department. A prayer for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from dis-possessing the plaintiff-petitioner from the shop in question forcibly or illegally is, thus, made. Alongwith the suit he also filed an application under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction. The Trial Court, having regard to the rival contentions, directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The respondents herein filed an appeal against the said order and the Appellate Court has reversed the finding and has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The present revision petition is filed to impugn the said order. 2. The case set up by the petitioner-plaintiff, who is no more and is now represented by his L.Rs, is that the shop in dispute was in the ownership of the State of Punjab and was allotted to Chaman Lal, father of the plaintiff in an auction for a sum of Rs.3050/-. Earnest money of Rs.200/- was paid as per the terms and conditions and accordingly order dated 26.8.1959 was passed in favour of late Chaman Lal. It is claimed that the possession was also handed over to him and one instalment of Rs.150.59P was also deposited. It is then disclosed that Chaman Lal used to hand over some instalments to his brother, Roshan Lal, as he remained ill and suffered from depression. Roshan Lal connived with the officials of the Department and got the conveyance deed dated 18.8.1990 issued in his favour by fraud and misrepresentation. In fact, Chaman Lal was entitled to get the conveyance of the said property in his name. Roshan Lal connived with the officials of the Department and got the conveyance deed dated 18.8.1990 issued in his favour by fraud and misrepresentation. In fact, Chaman Lal was entitled to get the conveyance of the said property in his name. Since Chaman Lal is no more, plaintiff, being his legal heir, had filed this suit, when Roshan Lal did not respond to the notices issued to him. 3. The pleas as raised by the plaintiff-petitioner is controverted and it is disclosed that though the shop in dispute was allotted to Chaman Lal but later on was purchased by Roshan Lal, who accordingly filed an application dated 21.5.1988 informing the Department that he had purchased the property in dispute from his brother Chaman Lal. The Department accordingly had passed an order in favour of Roshan Lal and had executed a conveyance deed in his favour. Plea of res judicata is also raised by the legal heirs of Roshan Lal (defendant Nos.2 to 5) on the ground that previous suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed on 20.7.2000 and appeal against the same was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Another plea is that the shop was allotted to Roshan Lal and after his death came in possession of the defendants who have now transferred the same in favour of Kalashwati widow of Roshan Lal and she is in possession of the same. Plea further is that Chaman Lal had never remained in possession of the property and he could not establish his possession and as such, the previous suit filed by him for injunction was dismissed. 4. It is seen that the earlier suit filed by Chaman Lal was for permanent injunction and defendants were sought to be restrained from alienating the suit property, which was dismissed. No issue in regard to the title arose in the said case. This suit, as such, may not operate as resjudi-cata but certainly would indicate that the plaintiff was unable to establish his/her possession and that is how the suit for permanent injunction was dismissed. It is not a matter of dispute that the conveyance deed of the shop is in favour of Roshan Lal. Chaman Lal never challenged the said sale deed during his life time. He had only filed a suit for permanent injunction. It is not a matter of dispute that the conveyance deed of the shop is in favour of Roshan Lal. Chaman Lal never challenged the said sale deed during his life time. He had only filed a suit for permanent injunction. The finding in the said suit is that Chaman Lal failed to prove to be the owner in possession of the suit property and the defendants were found owner in possession thereof. The order restraining the respondents from enjoying the fruits of the property was, thus, not made. The Appellate Court has made reference to number of letters/complaints which were made by Chaman Lal to different officials to notice his stand that he had never entered into an agreement with his brother and had not surrendered his rights. In one of the letters, Chaman Lal had disclosed that he left the shop with the clothes alongwith the papers and documents in the custody of his brother, Roshan Lal and himself went to Uttar Pradesh. It is mentioned that on his return, his brother Roshan Lal refused to return the shop and papers to him. Not only this, in one of the letters written to the Chief Minister, Punjab, Chaman Lal had written that he went to Muradabad and stayed there for eight years and on return his brother had refused to hand over the possession of the shop back to him. The Appellate Court is justified in observing that concededly the possession of the shop was handed over to Roshan Lal and Chaman Lal or his L.R, (now plaintiff) and petitioner in the revision. She is, thus, not seen to be in possession of the shop, which would entitle her to have the interim order in her favour. The Appellate Court has properly appreciated the facts and has rightly dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The impugned order would not call for any interference. The present revision is accordingly dismissed. ———————