Civil Revision No. 6774 of 2005 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6774 of 2005 Date of decision: 26.09.2006. Mukhtiari ..... Petitioner. Versus Bhoop Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. PATWALIA Present:- Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Chauhan,Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. P.S. PATWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the orders dated 09.09.2005 and 08.12.2005 passed by the trial Court and lower appellate Court whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed and a first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. The facts as emerge from the pleadings and the orders challenged are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition of the property, which is a residential house. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is a co- owner of the house and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 , who are her real brothers, are adamant to re-construct the house in order to diminish its value and utility. Civil Revision No. 6774 of 2005 --2-- It was further case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are trying to oust the plaintiff from the suit property. The trial Court and lower appellate Court have found that the plaintiff could not produce any prima facie evidence to show that she was ever in possession of the house. It has been further found that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of the property. It was further been found by the lower Courts that the share of the plaintiff is 1/24 in the said property. She has claimed this share out of the share of her brother who died issueless. On the other hand, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been found to be co-sharers of the property along with one Ram Kumar in equal three parts. They thus have a substantial share in the property and cannot be denied the use and enjoyment of the same. It is on this basis that temporary injunction has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforementioned findings of the courts below. She submits that the defendants are likely to re-construct over the property. She states that in case this is done, the value of the property would be diminished and her interest in the property shall be effectively excluded. In view of the findings recorded by both the courts below, which are well borne out from the material on the record it is clear that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property and that her share is only 1/24 of the property, I do not find it to be a case where the respondents should be restrained from constructing over the property. Even if any construction is raised, it will always be subject to the final decision in the civil suit filed Civil Revision No. 6774 of 2005 --3-- by the plaintiff. Her interest can be safely protected at the time of final judgment. I, therefore, find no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 26, 2006 ( P.S. PATWALIA ) dinesh JUDGE