IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.229 of 2009. Date of decision: 30.04.2009 Smt.Sunita & Another … …Petitioners Versus Shri Rajinder Prakash Sood … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.S. Bagga, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiffs petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order of the learned Court of District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur, affirming the order passed by the learned trial Court declining injunction to the appellants-plaintiffs herein. The plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit for declaration praying that the plaintiffs are the co-owners in possession of the suit land and the mutation of family partition being No.395 dated 21.5.2008 is illegal and not binding on the interest of the plaintiffs. A further relief of injunction was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 sought for prohibiting and restraining the defendants from interfering in and on the suit land, changing the nature of the property etc. In the interim application filed, the principle of co- ownership was invoked by the petitioners to urge that the defendants cannot reserve any particular part of the property for their use. The trial Court on a consideration of the facts dismissed the application. While doing so, I find that the trial Court has gone astray and has also made observations regarding the merit of the respective cases put forth by the parties. This course of action is to be avoided at all costs. True that there has to be some consideration of the material on record in order to arrive at a prima facie opinion, but that does not mean that firm conclusions are to be arrived at which rather preempts the entire case. The trial Court had no business to say that the partition has become final or not, since on the allegations in the plaint, it was to be established on a settled issue as to whether there has or has not been a partition in accordance with law and the allegations made by the plaintiff as to why the alleged partition should not be accepted is yet to be determined. Nonetheless, the learned appellate Court also affirmed this finding. Both the Courts seem to have undertaken an exercise of adjudication at the interim stage as if it was a full fledged trial which would dispose of the whole suit. Without going into the contentions on merits urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is 3 disposed of with the directions that the suit property shall abide by the final decision in the suit, that is to say no party shall claim any right/equity on the basis of any construction, improvement, encumbrances etc. having been placed on the suit land or claim equity of right for possession on the basis of such acts or otherwise. There shall be no order as to costs. All Miscellaneous applications are disposed of. April 30, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.