C.R. No.7251 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7251 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.01.2010 Kanwar Kumar and others .……Petitioners Versus Ram Narain and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rajiv Godara, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is civil revision petition by defendant Nos.1 to 3 assailing judgment dated 23.09.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. Ram Narain-respondent No.1 filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 4 i.e petitioners and proforma respondent No.3 herein from interfering in exclusive possession of the plaintiff (respondent No.1) and proforma defendant No.5 (respondent No.2) over the suit land measuring 22 kanals 18 marlas without getting the joint land partitioned. By moving separate application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff sought temporary injunction to the same effect. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dabwali vide order dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. However, in appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order, learned Additional District Judge, C.R. No.7251 of 2009 -2- Sirsa vide impugned judgment dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure P-2) allowed the appeal and accepted the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendant Nos.1 to 4 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.5 over the suit land and from dispossessing them therefrom except in due course of law during the pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed the instant revision petition. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.5 are co-sharers in total joint land measuring 103 kanals 10 marlas. They are in exclusive possession of the suit land measuring 22 kanals 19 marlas as co-sharers, out of the total land. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 wanted to oust them from the suit land without getting it partitioned, although defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no right to do so. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 inter alia pleaded that they are co- sharers in the total joint land measuring 103 kanals 10 marlas and are, therefore, entitled to possess every part thereof. The plaintiff was claiming possession in excess of his share. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners and proforma respondent No.3 are in exclusive possession of the suit land. However, from the orders of the Courts below, it appears that the petitioners have not even taken such plea in their written statement or reply. In any event, prima facie exclusive possession of plaintiff and proforma defendant No.5 C.R. No.7251 of 2009 -3- over the suit land is established, although as co-sharers. Entries in jamabandi for 2002-03 and in khasra-girdawri from 2003-04 till 2006- 07 record the exclusive possession of father of plaintiff over the suit land and after his death, plaintiff and proforma defendant No.5 are in exclusive possession thereof. There is no material on record to even remotely depict that defendant Nos.1 to 4 i.e petitioners and proforma respondent No.3 are in possession of the suit land or any part thereof. When prima facie exclusive possession of plaintiff and proforma defendant No.5 over the suit land is established, defendant Nos.1 to 4 even as co-sharers cannot disturb the said exclusive possession of plaintiff and defendant No.5 over the suit land without getting the suit land partitioned i.e without due course of law. Consequently, there is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned judgment of the appellate Court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 14.01.2010 A. Kaundal