JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - By this judgment two revision petitions bearing C.R. No.1186 of 2013 and C.R. No.1194 of 2013 shall be disposed of. 2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession of the plot in dispute as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any type of construction over the said plot. 3. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed for interim injunction before the trial Court and the trial Court finding disputed question of fact of possession and ordered status quo. An appeal was filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 03.12.2012. 4. Petitioner-defendant has approached this Court by way of filing present revision petition to challenge order dated 03.12.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala on the ground that petitioner is in possession of the suit property and the sale deed in favour of respondent was sham transactions just to defeat the right of the petitioner. Respondent never remained in possession as owner of the property and he was attorney of Gurdial Singh, who earlier filed a suit for injunction against Narinderpal Singh, Surjit Kaur and one more but the interim application filed in that suit was declined. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by recording a wrong finding as prima-facie case is in favour of the petitioner and balance of convenience is also in his favour as is clear from finding recorded by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court without recording any finding as to how the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession over the plot land in dispute since long and he prays that petitioner be allowed to raise construction over the plot at his own risk so that he can enjoy the property which belongs to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Bhupesh Mangal vs. Dr. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of this Court in Dr. Bhupesh Mangal vs. Dr. Ravi Chander Mangla, 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 657 as well as judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Narottam vs. Geeta Devi & Ors., 2011 AIR (Raj) 60 wherein construction was allowed at own risk and responsibility subject to the outcome of the suit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was earlier in possession and he raised boundary wall also but subsequently, his construction was demolished by the petitioner and after that suit for possession was filed. The order passed by the First Appellate Court is self-speaking, which does not require any interference by this Court. Continued this next issue 33 & 34 P&H Sharanjit Singh v. Raghu Nath 7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala as well as order passed by the trial Court. 8. Admittedly, the trial Court decided the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by recording a finding that both the parties are claiming possession as well as title over the plot in dispute by way of registered sale deeds and it is difficult for the Court to reach to the conclusion as to which of the party is in possession over the suit property. Accordingly, status quo was ordered by the trial Court. The present petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the trial Court and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2012, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petitions. 9. Apart from arguing on merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his prayer for allowing to raise construction over the plot in dispute at his own risk and responsibility and he undertakes not to claim anything and construction would be subject to outcome of the suit. 10. The trial Court while deciding application filed by the plaintiff-respondent has given the following finding: - “xxx xxx xxx Here, it is a case in which both the parties are claiming title over the suit property by way of registered sale deeds. The jamabandi is on the file which goes to show that the total area of khasra number from which parties have purchased the property is 22(2-3). The jamabandi is on the file which goes to show that the total area of khasra number from which parties have purchased the property is 22(2-3). Now the revenue record does not show any tatima as to which portions were sold. The jamabandi shows the name of plaintiff having been purchased the suit property. On the other hand, sale deed placed on record by the defendant also bears the same khasra number. So, in these circumstances at this stage, it would be difficult for the court to the conclusion as to which of the party is in possession of the suit property. So, in such a situation it would appropriate that the parties be directed to maintain status quo with regard to suit property as it is so that none of the party suffers, and the actual position can be made clear only after the evidence is lead by the parties. Hence, an order to maintain status quo regarding the construction over the suit property be maintained by the parties till final disposal of the suit. xxx xxx xxx” 11. It is clear from the finding recorded by the trial Court that possession over the plot in dispute is disputed as both the parties are claiming not only ownership but possession also. Similarly, the First Appellate Court has also recorded finding by stating that both the parties are claiming their possession over the suit land and it is a matter of evidence whether sale deed dated 27.11.2007 is false and fabricated document. The genuineness of sale deed dated 27.11.2007 is a matter of evidence, which will be decided by the trial Court. The observations made by the First Appellate Court are reproduced as under: - “xxx xxx xxx From the perusal of the documents, on record, one thing is clear that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession of the plot of land, bearing Khasra No.4950/2195/469 min to the extent of 316.5 Sq. Yards i.e., 0-6.1/3 biswas, out of bigh 2.2/3 biswas, situated at Bharpur Garden, Patiala and also filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and party men from raising any type of construction over the said plot, in any manner whatsoever and the plaintiff is relying upon sale deed as well as Jamabandi. Yards i.e., 0-6.1/3 biswas, out of bigh 2.2/3 biswas, situated at Bharpur Garden, Patiala and also filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and party men from raising any type of construction over the said plot, in any manner whatsoever and the plaintiff is relying upon sale deed as well as Jamabandi. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has argued that the sale deed is a sham transaction and placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.02.2006. It is admitted that the appellant/defendant has already occupied the plot in question and both the parties are claiming their possession over the suit land. Still it is question of evidence whether the sale deed dated 27.11.2007 is false and fabricated document. So, at the stage, it is difficult to ascertain whether the sale deed is false and fabricated. So, the order placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant of case titled as “Gurdial Singh Vs. Narinderpal Singh” does not help to prove his averments as in that order, there is no mention of sale deed dated 27.11.2007. So, only after leading the evidence by both the parties, it will be determined whether the sale deed dated 27.11.2007 is legal or valid or not. So, at the stage, prima-facie is made out and balance of convenience also lies and it will be proper to pass status quo order in the interest of justice with regard to construction over the suit land.” 12. It is clear from the facts as mentioned above that both the parties are claiming their ownership as well as possession over the plot in dispute and both of them are subsequent purchasers of the land. Nothing can be said as to who is owner in possession over the land in dispute. When ownership as well as possession over the land in dispute is disputed, the interim direction would attract more litigation as in case, the status quo order is passed, then efforts are being made by both the parties to take possession of the property to show their possession. 13. The grant or refusal of an interim injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, or diligence should be taken by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. Once an injunction is granted, it takes time to vacate that order. 14. 13. The grant or refusal of an interim injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, or diligence should be taken by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. Once an injunction is granted, it takes time to vacate that order. 14. In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (dead) through L.Rs. and others, [2012(3) Law Herald (SC) 1828] : 2012(2) RCR (Civil) 441, the observation of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in such like matter is as under: - “Grant or refusal of an injunction 86. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness.” 15. Similarly in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC 727, this view has been affirmed, which is reproduced as under: - “In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.” 16. In Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, [2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 285] : (2010) 2 SCC 142 , the 3-Judge Bench considered a somewhat similar question in the context of the refusal of the trial Court and the High Court to pass an order of temporary injunction, referred to the judgments in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd (supra), N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. (1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed: “The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity.” 17. In view of facts and law position as mentioned above, there is no merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and revision petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————