C.R. No. 1450 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1450 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.3.2011 Jorawar Singh ......Petitioner Versus Rachan Singh and others .......Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from creating any hindrance/obstruction in the use of joint tubewell situated in khasra No.614. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The trial Court vide order dated 30.9.2010 dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said order plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Shahabjada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali). Hence, the present petition by defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. It has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order that as per the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2008-09 plaintiffs and defendant no.1 were co-owners of the land in dispute C.R. No. 1450 of 2011 (O&M) 2 and they were in joint possession thereof. The plea of the petitioner that the suit land had been partitioned was not reflected in the revenue record. Although, the electric connection in dispute is in the name of defendant No.1, but since the suit land is jointly owned by the co-sharers, all the co-sharers are entitled to use the electric connection/tubewell in dispute. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. The impugned order does not call for any interference. Anything observed above will have no bearing on the merits of the case. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 1, 2011 Anand