IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1041 of 2009 Date of decision:20.03.2009 Paras Ram ...Petitioner versus Nand Kishore ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-caveator. 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 is against the order of dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the trial Court declining to grant relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The order was issued in the context of plea taken by the defendant that there had been an oral arrangement of partition in April 2000 and in that partition, the property in dispute is exclusively allotted to him and that he had entered into an arrangement with Indian Oil Corporation for establishing the Petrol Pump. The Court below found that there was no justification for seeking for the relief of injunction especially when the claim was resisted by the other co- owners. 2. In revision, it is contended by the plaintiff that the properties have not been fully divided and there is even another suit in Civil Revision No.1041 of 2009 - 2 - relation to the same property, bearing No.190 of 2007 titled as Ram Avtar versus Mohinder and others, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari. In that case also, this Court had directed that no construction shall be put up and has also directed that the suit shall be taken up. 3. The pendency of yet another suit or any other order passed by this Court are not matters of record and therefore the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are stoutly denied by the counsel for the respondent. His argument however is that he had also put up a small construction at the property in his exclusive possession and that for the construction so raised, the plaintiff had never raised any objection. Now the respondent was finalizing the deal with the Indian Oil Corporation for putting the Petrol Pump and that any restraint order made enormous hardship. 4. The principle of law that the co-owner cannot obtain injunction against another co-owner will have to understood always in the context of a legal position that the co-owner's possession is invariably treated on behalf of others as well and therefore no person shall restrain another person from enjoying the property. A fortiori presumptive joint possession of a co-owner cannot be so used as to usurp exclusive possession by one person if objected by another co-owner. Although, the respondent contends that he is in exclusive possession of the property, it is conceded by him that there are no separate mutation entries in relation to the property in his favour. With the conflicting claims of exclusive possession, it will be unsafe to allow anyone party to Civil Revision No.1041 of 2009 - 3 - make for any further construction or allow anyone party to obtain an arrangement with the third party which can impact the rights of other co- owners. The plaintiff's status as a co-owner in respect of the property itself is not denied, but the contention is that such a property has already been divided. It is a matter of issue for adjudication and the nature of user that is proposed to be put up is such it is difficult to obtain a reversal of the status on ground if one party is allowed to establish a petrol pump. In the event the plaintiff establishing a prime facie case, the preservation of status quo is norm. The refusal of injunction by the Courts below will seriously injure the rights of parties in suit and the orders of the Court below is set aside and the revision is allowed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 20.03.2009 sanjeev