CR No.1986 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1986 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.4.2009 Roop Chand Rathi ......Petitioner Versus Narain Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff's revision challenging the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rewari and order dated 12.2.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants in the suit land to the extent of their share, was rejected. As per the averments made in this petition, the plaintiff and proforma respondents No.3 to 6 purchased 1/3rd share of the suit land by way of registered sale deed dated 17.4.1985 for a sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- and the possession of the land was handed over to them on the same day. The mutation was also sanctioned in their favour vide mutation No.627 dated 16.5.1985. Respondents No.1 and 2 got a collusive decree dated 23.8.1986 of the suit land in their favour without impleading them as a party. Since respondents No.1 and 2 started interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner and proforma respondents, the present suit for permanent injunction was filed. Along with the suit, the CR No.1986 of 2009 2 petitioner also filed an application for ad interim injunction which was rejected by both the Courts below and is now under challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below have failed to consider the revenue record showing the petitioner and proforma respondents as owners in possession and the petitioner cannot be declined the relief of ad interim injunction as prayed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner and respondents are co-sharers in the suit land. The sale deed dated 17.4.1985 allegedly in favour of the petitioner and proforma respondents does not show that they were put in exclusive possession in a specific portion of the suit land. It is well settled that a co-sharer cannot file a suit for permanent injunction against the other co-sharer and further that a purchaser of a share cannot claim physical possession of any specific portion without getting the whole land partitioned. Even exclusive possession of a co-sharer in a portion of undivided land is subject to partition. Moreover, the relief of temporary injunction is of a discretionary character and ordinarily, the Court of Appeal cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court and substitute for it, its own decision. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed in exercise of the discretion by the Courts below. Dismissed. April 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.1986 of 2009 3