JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendant no.3 Jagtar Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. 2. Respondent no.1-plaintiff Rajinder Kumar filed suit against Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased), his sons Didar Singh (defendantrespondent no.2) and Jagtar Singh (defendant no.3-petitioner) for permanent injunction alleging that defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 19.11.1994 and possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff. The agreement was executed by defendant no.2 and was also signed by defendants no.1 and 3 as witnesses. Entire sale consideration was received by defendant no.2. The plaintiff, on the basis of his possession, sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. By moving separate application, plaintiff claimed temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit. 3. Defendants no.1 and 3 contested the suit and the application, whereas defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte. 4. Defendants no.1 and 3 pleaded that defendant no.1 is owner of the suit property. However, impugned agreement to sell was denied. It was also pleaded that defendant no.2 had no authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant no.1, who is owner of the suit land. The plaintiff illegally and forcibly encroached upon the suit land and fabricated the alleged agreement. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide order dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure P-1), dismissed the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction. However, appeal against the said order preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide impugned judgment dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) and thereby, defendants have been restrained from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit property and from dispossessing him therefrom during pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.3 has filed this revision petition. 6. Service of respondent no.2 is dispensed with as he was ex-parte in the trial court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned agreement has been denied by defendants no.1 and 3, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim possession on the basis of said agreement. 6. Service of respondent no.2 is dispensed with as he was ex-parte in the trial court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned agreement has been denied by defendants no.1 and 3, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim possession on the basis of said agreement. It was also contended that suit for permanent injunction alone is not maintainable because the plaintiff has not sought relief of specific performance of the agreement. 9. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.1 contended that for suit for permanent injunction and for purpose of temporary injunction, question of possession only is to be seen. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Thimmaiah vs. Shabira and others, [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 956] : reported as 2008 (1) R. C. R. (Civil) 915. It was also contended that prima facie in view of the agreement, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and even defendants no.1 and 3 have admitted possession of plaintiff over the suit land by alleging that he has encroached thereupon, and therefore, temporary injunction has been rightly granted to the plaintiff. 10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 11. Prima facie, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. He has relied on agreement dated 19.11.1994, which was allegedly executed by defendant no.2 and allegedly signed by defendants no.1 and 3 as witnesses. Moreover, defendants no.1 and 3 have themselves admitted the possession of plaintiff over the suit land by pleading that he has encroached thereupon. Consequently, prima facie, plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. However, suit for injunction alone is not maintainable in view of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because the plaintiff had equally efficacious remedy to seek specific performance of the alleged agreement, but has not sought the said relief. If suit for permanent injunction itself is not maintainable, then the question of granting temporary injunction would not arise. In this view of the matter, judgment in the case of Sri Thimmaiah (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I find that plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction, and therefore, impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is unsustainable in law. In this view of the matter, judgment in the case of Sri Thimmaiah (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I find that plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction, and therefore, impugned judgment of the lower appellate court is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the appellate court is set aside. Order dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court, dismissing the application of respondent no.1-plaintiff for temporary injunction, is restored and application of respondent no.1-plaintiff for temporary injunction stands dismissed. However, nothing observed herein before shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. ---------0.B.S.0------------