Civil Revision No. 3795 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3795 of 2011 Date of Decision: 2.6.2011 *** Santokh Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Diocesan of Jallandhar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The suit of the petitioner-plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from raising construction on the suit land is pending. It was his case that he along with respondents No.2 to 7 are co- sharers of the suit land, but the latter sold the same to respondent No.1, without getting the same partitioned, over which defendant No.1 has threatened to raise the construction. The stand of defendant No.1 is that he has already raised the construction and a school is being run over there. Along with suit plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction on the suit property, during pendency of the suit. The learned trial Court vide order dated 29.3.2010 allowed the same and restrained defendant No.1 from raising any construction over the property till the final disposal of the suit. Aggrieved with the same, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the learned appellate Court below set aside the order of the learned trial Court; directed for an appointment of the local commission on the expenses of defendant No.1 and asked the learned trial Court to then decide afresh the injunction application of the plaintiff. Dis-satisfied with the same, plaintiff has filed the present revision petition. Civil Revision No. 3795 of 2011 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book carefully. It is evident from the records that there is dispute with regard to the nature of the suit property. The plaintiff is claiming that defendant No.1 is threatening to raise construction thereupon while, as per defendant No.1, the construction is already in existence and a school is running over there. To ascertain the factual aspect of the matter, the learned appellate Court below ordered for appointment of the local commission that too on the expenses of defendant No.1. Till the submission of report by the local commissioner and the decision on the injunction application afresh by the learned trial Court, the appellate Court below has specifically observed that the injunction order passed by the trial court shall remain in force. To elucidate the truth this has been done rightly by the learned appellate Court. Moreover, the plaintiff is not going to prejudice from the same because till the decision by the learned trial Court, on his injunction application, afresh, the order already passed shall have the force of law. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE June 02, 2011 Jiten