IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2585 of 2009 Date of decision:08.05.2009 Labh Singh ...Petitioner versus Sadhu Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ----- 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 against the order dismissing an application for injunction pending suit from interfering from the alleged possession of a specified portion of a property. The plaintiff claimed that in an earlier round of litigation, the plaintiff had been declared entitled to an undivided share (3685/52023) in the property that was described as a communal land. While rejecting the relief of injunction, the trial Court has reasoned, which the Appellate Court has affirmed, that the plaintiff had not adduced proof of enjoyment of any specific portion of property and the partition decree had merely upheld the right to a share in the property itself but it was no proof that the particular property for which the petitioner was seeking for the relief of injunction had been allotted to him. Civil Revision No.2585 of 2009 - 2 - 2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner states that even if it was considered for argument sake that the property had not been specifically divided and allotted to him and that the property should be taken as held in common then even the defendant cannot be permitted to put up any construction. The inability of the plaintiff to show his exclusive possession for refusing the relief cannot to a mean that the defendant shall also be prevented from putting up Court eviction. It is the plaintiff that seeks for intervention of Court for an interim order and what the plaintiff is required to prove shall not be equated with what the defendant is liable to show. The relief of injunction sought for in such a case is not tenable in law. 3. The Civil Revision is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.05.2009 sanjeev