IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3979 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 29.06.2010 Daljit Singh ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS Balwinder Kaur and others ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aggrieved against the judgments dated 07.06.2010 and 17.05.2010, passed by Addl. District Judge, Hoshiarpur and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, respectively, dismissing the appeal and the application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, preferred by the petitioner- plaintiff, he has preferred this petition. The appellate Court in its order dated 07.06.2010 has observed as under:- “Furthermore, it is not disputed that both husband and wife are living in the same house for the last more than 20 years. There is no document of ownership of the disputed house either in the name of plaintiff or in the name of defendant No.1. The respondents/defendants have also placed on record photographs of the construction already raised in the house in dispute. As such, in view of the fact that fresh construction has already been raised, the application of appellant/plaintiff Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rendered as infructuous.” The respondents-defendants do not want to raise further construction after demolishing the house. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. In any way, if any construction is further raised by the respondents, the same would be at their own risk and cost and ultimately if the petitioner-plaintiff succeeds in the suit then respondents-defendants would not be entitled to claim any cost of improvement. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 29.06.2010 mamta-II