C.R.No. 1744 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No. 1744 of 2009 Date of Decision : 20.7.2009 Narinder Pal ...Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar and Ors. ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Singla, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below, whereby defendant/petitioner has been restrained from dismantling the suit property and also from raising any construction on the joint property till the disposal of the suit. As per the plaintiff, the property is joint, but the defendant has started dismantling the old construction in order to raise new construction so as to change the nature and shape of the property, which is still joint between the parties. Learned trial Court passed a restraint order keeping in view the photographs of the suit property, which show dismantling of old construction and new construction being raised by the defendant. It has been further found that large scale construction and dismantling has been made on the spot, as per the photographs placed on record and when admittedly the property is joint, therefore, the construction in the manner sought to be raised by the defendant cannot be C.R.No. 1744 of 2009 2 permitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner would like to complete the stair case and the roof, which has been laid and that the petitioner shall not claim any interest in the property on the basis of such construction raised. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. As per the findings recorded by the Courts below, the petitioner has dismantled large scale portion of the joint property, so as to raise construction. Since, the parties are co-sharers and the property being a residential property, any change in the construction of the property, where large number of co-sharers are residing, will prejudice the rights of other co-sharers. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 20.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE