IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2562 of 2009 Date of decision : January 13, 2010 Suman Bansal ....Petitioner versus Dharam Singh Verma and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Suman Bansal has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by a part of judgment dated 7.4.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff also claimed temporary injunction by moving separate application seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land till decision of the suit. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide order dated 17.1.2009 (Annexure P/4) allowed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction and restrained defendants (respondents) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff Civil Revision No. 2562 of 2009 -2- over the suit property till decision of the suit on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, defendants preferred appeal which has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide impugned judgment dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure P/5) but at the same time the appellate court has directed that neither party would raise construction over the suit property without getting it partitioned. The plaintiff is aggrieved by this direction of the appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the defendants had never sought any injunction against the plaintiff to restrain her from raising construction over the suit property and therefore, the direction of the appellate court that even the petitioner would not be entitled to raise construction over the suit property is uncalled for, unjustified and illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the suit property being joint and not yet partitioned, the plaintiff has no right to raise construction over the suit property. I have considered the rival contentions. I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The defendants did not file any application to seek any temporary injunction against the plaintiff to injunct her from raising construction over the suit land. When the defendants themselves had not claimed any such relief, the appellate court had no occasion to grant any such relief or to issue any direction to the plaintiff that she would also not raise any construction over the suit land without getting Civil Revision No. 2562 of 2009 -3- the same partitioned. The said direction is, thus, completely unjustified, erroneous and illegal and has to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and that part of impugned judgment dated 7.4.2009 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula whereby even the plaintiff has been injuncted from raising any construction over the suit land without getting it partitioned, is set aside. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 13, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'