IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2008 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19th July, 2011 Piara Singh and another … Petitioners Versus Gurwinder Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Rupinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by defendants to the suit. The respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction. He had also filed an application for ad-interim injunction. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff and had accepted the counter-claim made by the petitioners-defendants. The respondent-plaintiff was restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners-defendants. Aggrieved against the same, respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff being co-owner in the joint possession cannot be ousted from the land which is in joint possession. The Court further held that if the petitioners-defendants occupy the valuable portion of the joint land and raise a construction thereon it will prejudice the rights of the respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, the prayer of the respondent-plaintiff for ad-interim injunction was Civil Revision No.2008 of 2011 (O&M) allowed and the defendants were restrained from raising any construction over the suit land till final decision of the suit. It is a settled legal position that a co-owner cannot change the character/nature of the suit property and cause prejudice to the rights of other co-owners till the partition proceedings are concluded. Therefore, this Court is primarily of the view that the impugned order passed by the appellate Court suffers from no infirmity. At this stage, Mr.R.S. Bajaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-defendants, has stated that the suit was instituted in the month of February, 2010 and the respondent-plaintiff is in the process of leading evidence, if the suit is decided within a stipulated timeframe, it will save the parties from future complications. This submission is not opposed by the counsel opposite. I find merit in this contention. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by affording three effective opportunities to both the parties to conclude their evidence. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 19, 2011 rps 2