CR No.4054 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4054 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 10.11.2009 **** Birbal and another . . . . Petitioners VS. Bachan Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for Ms. Manjari Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the defendants who have been restrained from raising construction over a joint piece of land by the Courts below. The trial Court passed the ad interim injunction order dated 19.01.2009 on an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction which has been further upheld vide order dated 28.04.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar. (2). It is the conceded position that the subject land is a joint holding and no partition has taken place uptil now. The Courts below, on consideration of the material on record and the pleadings, have observed that the land being under the joint ownership, the petitioners cannot claim in CR No.4054 of 2009 - 2 - exclusive possession of any particular Khasra number or to raise any construction at their own risk and peril. In other words, the appropriate recourse left for the petitioners is to seek partition of the joint holding and thereafter only to raise the construction on their respective holdings. (3). It needs no emphasis that in an ad interim injunction matter, the revisional Court has very limited powers to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below, only in the cases of perversity or exceeding the jurisdictional limits. No interference in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, in the case in hand is, therefore, called for as the view taken by the Courts below is one of the plausible views. (4). However, keeping in view the fact that the parties are stated to be the senior citizens, it would be desirable and expedient if the learned Civil Court, Ropar make an endeavour to decide the pending Civil Suit preferably within a period of one year by granting limited opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence(s). Ordered accordingly. (5). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 10.11.2009 vishal shonkar CR No.4054 of 2009 - 3 -