Civil Revision No.100 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.100 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 6, 2011 Krishan Devi and another .....Petitioners v. Subhash Chand and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside order dated 6.12.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaithal, Annexure P1, and order dated 18.12.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, Annexure P2, vide which application filed by the petitioners for interim injunction was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court as well as by learned appellate Court. It is clear from the orders passed by learned Courts below that respondent-defendants are co-owners in possession of the property in dispute alongwith the present petitioner-plaintiffs and some other co- owners. Respondent-defendants intend to raise construction over the portion of their exclusive possession. Hence, they are having right to use the property in their possession in any manner. Petitioner-plaintiffs has no right to seek injunction against them restraining them to use the property to the extent of their share and in their exclusive possession. However, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned courts below have not clarified that the rights of present petitioner-plaintiffs will not be effected at the time of partition by Civil Revision No.100 of 2011 (O&M) -2- meets and bounds amongst all the co-sharers. Hence, the impugned orders passed by learned courts below are modified to the extent that raising of construction by respondent-defendants on portion of joint land exclusively in their possession during pendency of the suit shall be subject to partition and that they are liable to remove construction, if required on partition without claiming any damages. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit except with the modification in the impugned orders, as indicated above. 6.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge