C.R. No. 4629 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4629 of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.8.2009 Harjinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Bakshish Singh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby ad-interim injunction sought by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from raising construction over the specific portion, was declined. It has been found that earlier the petitioner sought partition of the joint property, but withdrew the proceedings from the Court of Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioner has earlier filed suit for injunction claiming the property to be joint, but the said suit was dismissed in default on 10.12.1996. Similarly, another suit for injunction was filed which was C.R. No. 4629 of 2009 (2) withdrawn on 14.8.2001. The present one is a third suit in series. The learned first Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff himself has raised construction over a specific portion of the joint property, therefore, the plaintiff is precluded from restraining the defendant from raising construction over the specific portion. Once the parties are in possession of specific portions, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction, is the reasoning given by the learned first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the previous proceedings were withdrawn as the matter was sought to be settled by way of negotiations. But settlement could not be effected. The plaintiff is a co-sharer and, therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to raise construction over a valuable property so as to deprive the enjoyment of the joint property by the plaintiff. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in abstract seems to be plausible, but in the facts of the present case, I do not find that the plaintiff is entitled to injunct the defendant from raising construction when by arrangement, the parties seem to be in separate possession. The conduct of the petitioner in withdrawing the partition proceedings from the Court of Financial Commissioner, Punjab, getting the suit dismissed in default in the year 1996 and later withdrawing the suit in 2001, shows that the plea of joint property raised by the petitioner was abandoned by him. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders,whcih may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. C.R. No. 4629 of 2009 (3) Needless to say, observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the application for grant of ad-interim injunction and the trial Court shall proceed with the suit on merits, in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 24-08-2009 ds