IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5773 of 2008 Date of Decision : October 23,2008 Thakur Dass ....Petitioner Versus Banarsi and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Hamid Hussan, Advocate for the petitioner. T.P.S. MANN, J. A suit for partition was filed by the petitioner, wherein he claimed that his ancestors and that of the respondents were joint owners and in possession of land marked as EFCD and shown in red colour in the site plan situated within the abadi deh of village Garhi Kotaha, Tehsil and District Panchkula. After the death of their ancestors, the petitioner became co-sharer in the suit property to the extent of half share, while respondents together inherited the remaining half share. However, the respondents had an eye on the land of the petitioner and wanted to grab whole of the suit land illegally and forcibly, although they had only half share in the same. The petitioner also filed an application for restraining the respondents from raising construction over the suit property without partition of the suit land but the said Civil Revision No. 5773 of 2008 -2- application was dismissed by the trial Court on September 13, 2008. Four days later, the petitioner filed another application before the trial Court for appointment of a Local Commissioner so as to visit the spot and report about the existing possession of the suit land. This application was also dismissed by the trial Court on September 25, 2008. Both the aforementioned orders have been challenged by the petitioner by filing present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The property in question is an open space marked as EFCD and shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that predecessors-in-interest of the parties, long ago, divided their respective properties and common passage was left for use by the respective parties. The petitioner has only relied upon the site plan so as to assert joint ownership and possessory rights. That by itself may not be sufficient to establish those facts. It may, at the most, depict the present situation regarding the suit property but not the title/possession of the parties, much less that of the plaintiff-petitioner. After the first application of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court on September 13, 2008, he filed the second application dated 17.9.2008 so as to seek appointment of a Local Commissioner. It is apparent that having failed in his attempt to restrain Civil Revision No. 5773 of 2008 -3- the respondents from raising construction over the suit property, the petitioner sought the appointment of the Local Commissioner. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, nothing expressed in the impugned orders by the trial Court or by this Court, while passing the present order, shall be taken as an expression on the merits of the case. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 23, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO