IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 519 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 30, 2011. Kartar Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Chhotu Ram and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for respondent no.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 05.01.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon allowing appeal filed by respondent-defendant no.1 against order dated 11.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Gurgaon vide which both the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding CR No.519 of 2011 construction and existing state of affairs over the suit property while deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by present petitioner-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court as well as order passed by learned trial Court. Case of present petitioner-plaintiff is that he is co-owner in possession of the property in dispute and that respondent-defendant who is also co-owner in the said property intends to raise construction over the same without getting the same partitioned. Hence, plea has been taken that if respondent-defendant no.1 succeeds in raising construction over the property in dispute without getting the same partitioned, irreparable loss would be caused to present petitioner-plaintiff. On the same assertion, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed by present petitioner- plaintiff. Respondent-defendant filed written statement as well as reply to the application denying the fact that the parties are co-owners in possession of the suit property. Rather plea has been taken that respondents-defendants are in exclusive possession of the same and they have been residing there. Further plea is that, the same has since been damaged and hence, two frontal rooms and gallery are required to be rebuilt by respondent-defendant no.1 at the place of broken well area in order to raise plinth level so that the water in rainy season may not come from the street/Rasta Aam in those rooms which were below the street level. Plea has also been taken that site place of respondent-defendant no.1 shows the old foundation of the said rooms and 2 CR No.519 of 2011 that respondent-defendant no.1 is rebuilding his old frontal two rooms and gallery in exercise of his legal rights. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that he is having no objection if construction is raised by respondent- defendant as per his plea by reconstructing old two frontal rooms and gallery and he may raise plinth level as well as requested by respondent-defendant no.1 and however, the same shall be subject to partition as suit for partition has already been filed. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the respondent- defendant that he is raising construction as per the said prayer only and that rather part construction has already been raised. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, the present revision petition is disposed of with the observation that construction would be raised by respondent-defendant no.1 as per his prayer indicated above and same shall be subject to decision of the partition suit already pending. Disposed of accordingly. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 30, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3