IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.140 of 2008. Date of decision: 06.11.2008. Hem Raj & Others …Petitioners Versus Rasila Ram & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 12: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the defendants’ petition against the order passed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, in appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court in proceedings under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the suit preferred by the plaintiffs- respondents, the learned trial Court declined to grant interim injunction to the plaintiffs holding that no prima facie case has made out nor has the balance of convenience in their favour. For reaching this conclusion, the learned trial Court considered 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 the revenue record wherein the entries did not favour the plaintiffs. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs- respondents, the learned Court has reversed the findings and has passed an order restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner and from cutting and removing the trees from it till the final decision of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I do not find that the learned appellate Court has considered the case in its true perspective. The learned trial Court, as a fact, found that the plaintiffs are disentitled to the relief. There was no pronouncement on the merits of the case. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellants- defendants submits that in case the plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the petitioners-defendants will not claim any right of any construction etc. which may be carried out on the suit land. Even in partition proceedings, the factum of construction or improvement of/on the land will not entitle the respondents to claim any equity of allotment. He submits that the defendants intend to start an industrial unit on the land and if the plaintiffs succeed, land, building and sheds etc. will be dismantled if the Court decides against the 3 defendants and possession would be handed over to the plaintiffs. In view of this statement, this petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court is quashed and set aside. It is ordered that in case of improvement of the land or any construction etc. being carried out thereon by the petitioners, putting it to the use or purpose of raising an industrial unit or for any other purpose, will not vest any equity in the petitioners herein. If the plaintiffs are ultimately found successful in the suit and if such land qua which the petitioners- defendants claim their rights, falls in the share of the plaintiffs, the defendants shall vacate the same without demure or without claiming any equity. No right or equity will be claimed in case of partition proceedings only by virtue of the improvement, construction etc. This petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. November 6, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.