CR No. 3446 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3446 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.11.2009 Amritpal Singh and another ....Petitioners. Versus Amrik Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The interim injunction having been declined by the courts below, the plaintiff-petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court which was on appeal affirmed by the lower appellate court vide order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-3). The prayer of the plaintiff-petitioners is that the defendant- respondents be restrained from raising further construction in the form of rooms in khasra No. 2312 during the pendency of the civil suit. The lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners in para 10 of its order had recorded as under:- “10. There cannot be any dispute about the settled position of law that scope of interference in an order CR No. 3446 of 2009 -2- passed by the trial court while disposing of an application for grant of temporary injunction is limited one. The present suit has been filed by appellants- plaintiffs on the averments that defendants- respondents are co-sharers as well as in joint possession of the land comprised in Kh. No. 2311, 2312, 2316 and 2334, but through the application for ad-interim injunction, they have sought to restrain the defendants-respondents from raising further construction in the form of rooms in Khasra No. 2312 which is admittedly in possession of defendants- respondents No.1 and 2. It is settled law that a co- sharer who is in exclusive possession has every right to raise construction over the area in his exclusive possession and the same is subject to adjustments at the time of partition by metes and bounds. As is evident from the pleadings of the parties, the parties are residing separately and have constructed houses separately by way of family arrangement and the learned trial court has rightly observed that a co- sharer who has raised construction in exclusive area in his possession cannot stop the other co-sharer from raising construction. Moreover, the rights of the parties qua both the Wills set up by them are yet to be determined after both the parties lead evidence. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the well CR No. 3446 of 2009 -3- reasoned order passed by the learned trial court and uphold the same.” In view of the above observations of the courts below, this court does not find any ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 16, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE