CMPMO No. 247 of 2006. 02.01.2008 Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. The learned trial Court indeed committed a grave error in permitting the petitioners to raise construction over the land or part of the land comprised in khasra No.1946/1 because admittedly this piece of land in the said khasra number is in the joint ownership of the parties and the same has not so far been partitioned. It clearly means, therefore, that the parties do not know about their respective identified shares in this piece of land. The land comprising in khasra No.1946 belongs to the petitioners and is in their exclusive possession. The trial Court, therefore, should have confined the petitioners’ construction activity only in the land comprised in khasra No.1946. The learned District Judge has by a correct appreciation of the facts and proper application of law set aside the order of the trial Court. I fully agree with the judgment of the learned District Judge which is under challenge in this petition. At the same time, I do wish to observe that as far as the construction activity being carried out by the petitioners in the land comprised in khasra No.1946 is concerned, there cannot be any restraint order qua the same. Undoubtedly at the same time the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise any construction over any part of the land comprised in khasra No.1946/1. The petition is dismissed. CMP No.500 of 2006. In view of the dismissal of the petition this application is also dismissed. January 02, 2008. (V.K. Gupta), C.J. (rc)