IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2307 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 28.05.2008 Amarjit Kaur & others ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate vs. Mohinder Singh & others ....Respondent(s) through None. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Jalandhar, whereby ad interim injunction application moved by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 had been allowed to the extent that the petitioners along with proforma respondents have been restrained from raising construction in the suit property which is stated to be a joint holding. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, though learned counsel had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents on September 10, 2007, however, no one has appeared on their behalf on subsequent dates. Meanwhile, petitioner No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 4.2.2008 for and on behalf of the petitioners and the proforma respondents, paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof read as follows:- C.R. No.2307 of 2007 -2- “3. That still further, construction raised by petitioners (defendant No.1 to 4) will be at their own risk and responsibility. In case, plaintiff/respondent No.1 is ultimately held entitled to 1/6 share of the suit property and the portion of the property falling in his share has got any construction raised by the petitioners during the pendency of suit, no relief/claim would be raised by the petitioners in respect of such construction, if any, raised during the pendency of the present suit. 4. That the above undertaking/affidavit is being furnished so that the petitioners (defendant No.1 to 4) are able to enjoy the fruits of the property during the pendency of the suit, which the petitioners have succeeded by virtue of sale deeds and registered Will dated 10.11.2000.” In view of the above-stated undertaking given on behalf of the petitioners, this revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is modified to the extent that the construction, if any, raised by the petitioners shall be absolutely at their own risk which shall confer no right/benefit in their favour either in the partition proceedings and/or otherwise and they shall remain bound by the undertaking reproduced here-in-above. Disposed of. May 28, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE