IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4605 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 09, 2011 Balbir Dass .. Petitioner Vs. Zora Singh and others .. Respondents Civil Revision No. 4548 of 2009 (O&M) Nasib Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Zora Singh and others .. Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner in C.R. No. 4605 of 2009. None for the petitioner in C.R. No. 4548 of 2009. Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This order of mine shall dispose of two connected petition Nos. 4605 and 4548 of 2009, having arisen out of the one and the same order. However, the facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are taken up from C.R. No. 4605 of 2009. The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 9.4.2009 (Annexure P2) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Arguments heard. Both the parties are one on the issue that the alleged agreement is in connection with the 1/3rd share of 243 kanals 13 marlas in favour of the plaintiff No.1/ petitioner (hereinafter referred as, 'the petitioner') and respondent No.1. It has also been submitted that Nasib Singh has already transferred his share in the land to Balbir Dass during the pendency of the suit and he is contesting the suit qua the remaining part of the land measuring 243 kanals 13 marlas involved in the agreement. Civil Revision No. 4605 of 2009 (O&M) & Civil Revision No. 4548 of 2009 (O&M) -2- In these circumstances, the first appellate court appears to have fallen in error in granting injunction qua the whole of the land and dismissing the appeal of Balbir Dass, whereas, the court should have granted injunction qua 1/6th share of Nasib Singh in the suit land. Resultantly, I partly accept the petition bearing No.4605 of2009 set aside the impugned order with the observations that the injunction order passed by the trial court would operate quo the 1/6th share of Nasib Singh during the pendency of the suit. In the light of the aforesaid observations, Civil Revision No.4548 of 2009, filed by Nasib Singh, is dismissed. February 09, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge