CR No. 565 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 565 of 2009 Date of decision February 24, 2009 Satpal Saini ....... Petitioner Versus M/s Jai Auto Components Limited and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. K. S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner . Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the caveator. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision petition is directed against the concurrent orders of the Courts below refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff to restrain the respondent from putting up any construction in the suit property. 2. The Courts below, while considering the prima facie case of the plaintiff, had referred to the mutation proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and the Civil Court orders where respondent's vendor namely M/s Peshawar Soap and Chemical Ltd. had been found to be in exclusive possession of specified Khasra Numbers. The Courts below have also referred to the existence of a Local Commissioner's report identifying the demarcation of the property in possession of the CR No. 565 of 2009 2 respondent's vendor. The Court below and the Appellate Authority pointed out to certain concealment of the fact by the plaintiff in not referring to the existence of several residential buildings held independently by the other co-sharers and the fact that there had been earlier proceedings referring to the exclusive possession of the respondent's vendor. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has objection that even the Courts below have stated that there was no material on record to show that the entire property has been divided by metes and bounds and refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd)., Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass 2005 (1) Civil Court Cases 430 where the Supreme Court upheld right of the co-owner to restrain further alienation and raising of construction by other co-owners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court said that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, Court should not permit the nature of property being changed which also included alienation or transfer of property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed. This decision was considered in a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in Mandali Ranganna and others Vs. T. Ramachandra and others AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2291 where the Court although refused the relief of injunction put the other party on terms by directing the respondent to deposit a certain sum. 3. The respective cases have to be understood their factual context. This is not a case where a changed character of the property is made for the first time at the institution of suit. Facts have been brought on record to show that change of land's dues was permitted by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh as early as in the year 1994 and a factory had been built in specific portions of the property. It is brought out through a Local Commissioner which has been adverted to by the Courts below that the property has been specifically demarcated by CR No. 565 of 2009 3 reference to compound walls. It is no objection of the plaintiff now that any construction is being made outside the compound wall or any data is available to the Court as to transgression made beyond what the respondent is entitled to. No prejudice can be said to be caused by putting up any construction where there existed already a construction within the boundaries which the respondent's vendor held. 4. The only protection that the plaintiff could have is the respondent shall not be allowed to plead any equity at the conclusion of the trial that the construction made if it is found to be in excess of the share which he was entitled to hold and that directed to not be demolished. The respondent ought to know that he has put up construction at his own peril. The plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence and establish that the constructions made are in excess of the area of entitlement and that the respondent's acts have been inspite of the objections by the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall be protected in such a right to obtain status quo ante in the event of his proving at the trial that his share in the property has been in any way reduced or obstructed by the respondent's acts or done in excess of any of his entitlement. 5. Subject to this right been expressly observed by this order to the plaintiff, the orders of the Court below are confirmed and the Civil Revision is disposed of in the above terms. 6. Since the plaintiff apprehends that respondent's act would grossly disrupt the status quo and cause prejudice to him it is requested that the trial Court takes up the case on priority and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of the order. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 24 , 2009 archana