C.R.No.2517 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2517 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Surinder Singh and another ….Petitioners Vs. Sarwan Singh ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiffs-Petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.9.2008 (P.5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur whereby their application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction was dismissed and the judgment dated 18.1.2011 (P.7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur dismissing the appeal. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from cutting and removing the mango trees from Khasra No.17/15 till the demarcation is done and payment of price is fixed by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur. Along with the civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction was filed. Upon notice, the same was opposed by filing detailed reply. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court vide order dated 15.9.2008 dismissed the application for grant of ad interim injunction. On an appeal C.R.No.2517 of 2011 #2# having been filed, the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 18.1.2011. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that both the courts below fell in error while dismissing the application of the plaintiff- petitioners, therefore, the impugned orders being passed on surmises and conjectures suffer from illegality and liable to be set aside. It is further argued that since the trees are in possession of joint land, the defendant- respondent be restrained from cutting the same. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. It is the case of the plaintiffs-petitioners that the father of the petitioners and the defendant-respondent Sarwan Singh are/were real brothers and both were owners of the land measuring 71 kanal, 8 marla in equal shares. It is further case of the petitioners that a family settlement for partition of the land had taken place and as such they were in separate possession of their shares, however, the defendant was not satisfied with the aforesaid partition. It is further case of the petitioners that feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the entire land and the same was decided by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 19.1.1998. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.11.2002, learned Assistant Collector among others assessed the price of three mango trees at Rs.23500/-. Appeal filed against the partition order was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division as well as Financial Commissioner, Punjab but despite that the defendant-respondent attempted to cut the trees. C.R.No.2517 of 2011 #3# It is the case of the defendant-respondent that no such family settlement has ever taken place. As a matter of fact, defendant-respondent filed a civil suit against the present petitioners, which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur on 15.12.1998 and appeal filed against the same was decided vide order dated 10.11.1998, hence the present suit itself is barred by res judicata. Learned trial Court, in the opinion of this court, has rightly come to the conclusion that no doubt the joint land was partitioned between Dev Singh and Swaran Singh by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur and the value of mango trees was assessed at Rs.23500/- but it is no where mentioned in the partition proceedings that value of the said trees will be given by Swaran Singh to Dev Singh. In fact, the land where said trees are standing came to the share of Swaran Singh in the partition proceedings as per the pleadings of plaintiffs-petitioners. Therefore both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that Swaran Singh being the owner of said trees and land has a right to use the same in any manner as he likes. Therefore both the learned courts have rightly found that no prima facie case is made out for grant of ad interim injunction. Even the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners and as such no irreparable loss or injury would be caused to the petitioners. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. April 19, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE