Civil Revision No.6735 of 2009(O&M) ..4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6735 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision : 18th November,2009 Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sukhmander Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.C.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Sabina,J.(Oral) Plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of partition of the house in dispute and has also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making further construction on the plot/house in dispute. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide order dated 27.04.2009, trial court directed that the defendant shall remain bound by his statement that he shall not alienate the specific portion out of the suit property and also more than his share. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal. Vide order dated 16.10.2009, learned Additional District Judge in appeal filed by the petitioner modified the order of the trial court to the extent that the defendant-respondent was restrained from raising the construction over the property which was not in his specific possession. Hence, the Civil Revision No.6735 of 2009(O&M) ..4. present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent could not be allowed to raise construction over the property in dispute. In case any construction was raised by the respondent, difficulties would arise at the time of final partition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of merit. Learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has held as under:- "It is admitted fact that suit property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant on their names. The defendant has alleged one family partition, but the defendant has not alleged whether the family partition was oral or reduced into writing. If the same was oral, its factum can only be proved by leading evidence by concerned parties during trial. As the suit property is not partitioned by metes and bounds by any decree of the court, therefore, plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff because during the course of arguments, it is admitted that defendant is in possession over area more than his share, but the case of the defendant counsel is that the area in possession of the defendant is more than because his possession is over rear portion of the land of the suit property, whereas possession of the plaintiff over front portion which is more valuable. Who is in possession over Civil Revision No.6735 of 2009(O&M) ..4. which area can only be determined during the course of trial and irreparable loss shall be caused if the defendant go on raising construction without any restriction and hindrance. Therefore, application filed by the plaintiff stands allowed to the extent that defendant is restrained from alienating more than his share and of area not in his specific possession and is restrained raising construction over property which is not in his specific possession. However, any construction raised by the defendant over property which is in his specific possession during the pendency of the suit shall be subject to the outcome of final decision and if the portion in specific possession of the defendant fell to the share of the plaintiff in partition, the defendant shall be bound to demolish construction if any raised by him at his own cost. Accordingly, order of the learned trial court is modified." Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Additional District Judge has thus rightly held that since defendant was in possession of the rear portion of the suit property and hence he could raise construction over the portion in his exclusive possession. The plaintiff is in possession of the front portion of the suit property. A co-sharer is entitled to enjoy the property which is in his exclusive possession. In case the defendant is restrained from raising construction over the part of the property in dispute over which he has exclusive possession, defendant would suffer an irreparable loss. Moreover, any construction raised by the defendant would be subject to Civil Revision No.6735 of 2009(O&M) ..4. the final outcome of the case. In case during partition portion of the property in dispute which is now in possession of the defendant comes to the share of the plaintiff, the defendant shall be bound to demolish the construction, if any, raised by him at his own costs. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 18th Nov.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge