IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3623 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 01.05.2008 Taar Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate vs. Amrik Singh and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.H.P.S.Ghumman Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala, whereby in an ad interim injunction matter, the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendants has been partly accepted and the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been partly dismissed thereby restraining the respondent-defendants from dispossessing petitioner No.1 (Taar Singh) from the suit land except in due course of law. The petitioners and the respondents claim themselves to be co- sharers in the suit land. The petitioners, however, further contend that petitioner No.2 is in exclusive possession of Khasra Nos.1246/655 min (1- 11), 1248/656 (3-3), 1249/657 (3-2) and 1258/659 (3-2) as per the jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 and that he is entitled to continue in exclusive possession thereof till the joint holding is partitioned as per law. C.R. No.3623 of 2007 -2- While issuing notice of motion, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the above-stated khasra numbers. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Since it is the conceded position that the subject property is a joint holding, the appropriate remedy for the parties is to initiate the partition proceedings. Consequently, liberty is granted to the respondent- defendants to file the partition proceedings notwithstanding the pendency of the injunction suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs. Till the partition proceedings are decided in accordance with law, both the parties are restrained from alienating and/or creating any charge over the subject property. Since the revenue record does indicate the possession of petitioner No.2 over khasra Nos.1246/655 min (1-11), 1248/656 (3-3), 1249/657 (3-2) and 1258/659 (3-2), the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to those khasra numbers till the suit and/or the partition proceedings are decided. Disposed of. May 01, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE