Civil Revision No.5988 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5988 of 2008 Date of Decision:26.02.2009 Mandir Radhey Shyam Dharmarth Trust & Ors. ....petitioners versus Gram Panchayat .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Hari Om Attri,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 whereby his prayer restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff has been dismissed. As per the averments made in the petition, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession to the extent of 8802/44583 share out of the total land measuring 1437 kanals 17 marlas and the defendant Gram Panchayat is owner in possession to the extent of 35781/44583 share in the aforesaid land. Since the land was shown as joint in the revenue record and there always remained a dispute between the parties, therefore, the plaintiff filed an application for partition before Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Bhiwani, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.06.1992 on the ground that question of title was involved which be got determined from the competent Court. It was further stated that thereafter again another application for partition was filed which was decided vide order dated 31.05.2002 on the basis of the order dated 06.06.1992. The aforesaid orders are illegal as no Civil Revision No.5988 of 2008 2 question of title was involved in the partition application and plaintiff was entitled to get the share of land separated and to obtain actual physical possession of the land. Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is inimical towards the plaintiff and due to this reason he is bent upon to alienate the suit land by way of lease and to take illegal and forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff. Hence this suit. Along with the suit, application for ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the plaintiff's share of land by way of lease and to dispossess him therefrom illegally or causing interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was also prayed. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.06.2008 (Annexure P-2) held that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land exceeding its share. However, interim injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land was rejected. The appeal filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no merit in this petition. Admittedly the petitioner and respondent are co- sharers in the suit land and the parties are in joint possession. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is in exclusive possession of portion of the joint land. It is well settled that no injunction can be granted against a co- sharer. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.02.2009 neenu