Civil Revision No.3359 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3359 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.2.2009 Charanjit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Sher Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. R.K.Battas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents S.D.ANAND, J. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the impugned application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. In appeal, the learned Ist Appellate Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. While recording that finding, the learned Ist Appellate Court noticed the following facts:- “The entries were also accordingly incorporated in the revenue record. From the copies of jamabandies it is clear that the land in dispute is still joint and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. ............. In the column of cultivation, there is specific entries in favour of Teja Singh, Harbans Singh, Jagtar Singh, Mohinder Singh, Sher Singh, Jit Singh. The possession of appellants – plaintiffs is also established from Khasra girdawari from Sauni 19998 to Haari 2006. The copies of sale deed are also on record vide which Civil Revision No.3359 of 2008 -2- **** the defendants purchased the property in dispute vide sale deeds dated 3.5.2006. From these sale deeds, it is clear that they have purchased share in the property and not the specific Khasra numbers. It is also not disputed that Teja Singh and others had filed a civil suit for declaration against Hardyal Singh and others regarding their ½ share in the estate of Sultan Singh which is still pending. The respondents claim that they were not party to the Civil litigation but they are bound by the decision of different courts regarding the property in dispute which remained pending between the plaintiffs and their vendors. ............... As per the copy of jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 and Khasra girdawari till Haari 2006, the present plaintiffs are shown in possession of Khasra numbers in dispute. No doubt the respondents – defendants have become co-owners in the property in dispute by virtue of sale deeds in their favour but co-sharer in exclusive possession has got every right to protect his possession from illegal forcible dispossession. They can always take possession in due course of law by filing a suit for partition.” I do not find any adequate reason to invalidate the order of the learned Ist Appellate Court. The appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. However, in view of the nature of controversy, it is deemed just and appropriate to order that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the main suit itself within six months from the next date of hearing by affording equal number of opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective plea at the trial. If any party requires the assistance of the Court in the form of summonses for summoning of an Civil Revision No.3359 of 2008 -3- **** official witness or otherwise, it shall be entitled to have that facility. However, the non return or non execution of the process shall be no excuse for any further adjournment. Disposed of accordingly. February 16, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge