C.R. No.4145 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No.4145 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.07.2010 Ram Singh ....Petitioner Versus G.P. Bicchauri ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Present petition is filed challenging order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the First Appellate Court thereby refusing to issue ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff – petitioner. Petitioner – plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitively injunction along with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC contending therein that the plaintiff is a co-owner in the suit land and defendant is adamant to interfere in the suit land forcefully and illegally by digging the property in dispute and laying down underground pipeline in the C.R. No.4145 of 2010 2 property in dispute. Contentions of the plaintiff were refuted and it was contended that the defendant was authorized by other co-sharers in the Khasra number to lay down pipeline in the property in dispute. Both the Courts below by the impugned orders rejected the application of the plaintiff – petitioner by holding that defendant is also a co-sharer to the extent of one marla on the basis of gift deed dated 26.10.2009 and other co-sharers have no objection in the laying down of pipeline in the property in dispute and hence no injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is established on the record that the property is still joint property and has not been partitioned as yet. In view of this, no co-sharer or joint owners can be given license to change the nature of the property without the consent of the other co-owners. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed suit for partition in the competent revenue Court which is pending. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner till the property is partitioned, defendant should be restrained from laying down pipeline or to raise any construction on the property in dispute. As per the plaintiff himself suit for partition of property in dispute is pending before the competent Court. Both the Courts below did not find favour with the contention of the plaintiff and have rejected the application seeking ad interim injunction. Hence while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court thinks it proper not to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below refusing the injunction. However, in the opinion of this Court any C.R. No.4145 of 2010 3 construction made or any pipeline laid down under or over the property in dispute would be subject to the final decision of the suit for partition. Defendant should not be allowed to take benefit of his action without the consent of one of the co-owners i.e. plaintiff in outcome of the suit for partition. With these observations no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 09.07.2010 sk. C.R. No.4145 of 2010 4 Petitioner – plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction with the contention that the defendants are co-owners in the property in question and having only one Marla share. Defendants want to interfere in the joint possession of the plaintiff by digging the land and by laying pipeline. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff – petitioner that till the property is partitioned, no co-sharer has a right either to raise construction or to change the nature of the property. Learned counsel Mr. Munish Jolly, fairly stated that suit for partition is pending between the parties. In view of the pendency of partition suit between the parties, it is open to the petitioner to move an ad interim injunction application in a pending partition suit. In a civil suit, no ad interim injunction can be granted to maintain status quo till the partition suit is decided, which is pending in a competent Court. No interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek ad interim injunction in the pending partition suit.