IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5036 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.09.2009 Malook Singh .....Petitioner versus Shabeg Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sanjeev Manrai, 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby on an appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs, ad- interim injunction has been granted restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering in the exclusive possession of the respondents over the suit land, except in due course of law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are the real brothers. They have a third brother also. Their inherited lands are located in two different villages. While respondent No.1-plaintiff claims that an oral partition has already been taken place between them in the year C.R. No.5036 of 2009 (O&M) 2 1961 in terms whereof he is in exclusive possession of the land situated in village Akbarpur @ Murad Majra and the petitioner-defendant had got the land in village Faridpur, the petitioner-defendant has disputed the factum of the alleged oral partition. Since the respondent No.1-plaintiff/his sons are allegedly recorded to be in exclusive possession of the two khasra numbers in dispute, the first appellate Court has passed the restrain order against the petitioner-defendant. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the effective remedy, if any, available to the petitioner lies in a suit for partition before an appropriate Forum. Till the partition takes place and/or the respondents succeed in proving the alleged `oral partition', the first appellate court appears to be right in directing the parties to retain their respective possession. This, however, would not preclude the petitioner-defendant from seeking injunction against the respondent-plaintiff and/or other co-sharers not to alienate the joint property by specific khasra numbers and/or create any type of encumbrance or change the nature of the land. The petitioner may take necessary steps in this regard, if so desired. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. 03-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE