C.R.No.7118 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7118 of 2008 Date of Decision 12.11.2009 Mohan Singh & others ........ Petitioners Versus Manjit Kaur & others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiffs-petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the order dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by them seeking temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from raising construction on the suit land or alienating any specific portion thereof till partition was dismissed and also against the order dated 5.9.2008 (Annexure P-5) vide which the order of the trial court was upheld by the lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the share of Bhag Singh in the suit land and, therefore, the defendants-respondents cannot raise any construction over the same or alienate any specific portion till its partition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant- respondents supported the impugned orders. C.R.No.7118 of 2008 -2- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. The lower Appellate Court while affirming the order of the trial Court in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.RT-24 of 21.4.2008/23.10.2007, in para 10 of its order had recorded as under: “The perusal of the record would show that earlier Sital Singh predecessor-in-Interest of the appellants had filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition of 1/5th share in the property which is in dispute in this case. In that case he had categorically admitted in para No.1 of the plaint that out of Khasra No.177 and 177/1 an area measuring 0-12 was given by him to the defendants in a mutual settlement in lieu of abadi area consisting of house etc. They had constructed their house in the same. As per the case of the respondents in lieu of the above referred land the respondents gave land measuring 12 Marlas to said Sital Singh in Khasra No.85/1 and 81 where the plaintiffs constructed the house and sold an area of 1 Kanal 3 Marlas vide sale deed dated 4.9.1990 for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. Since both the parties have admitted raising of construction by them in the property in suit, therefore, it was rightly observed by the Ld.Lower Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit land is still joint. Therefore, I am of the view that the Ld.Lower Court has rightly exercised its discretion in not granting the relief of ad-interim injunction to the appellants as they have failed to prove a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour at this stage.” In view of the above observations of the lower appellate court, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in C.R.No.7118 of 2008 -3- exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 12, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE