IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5746 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.7.2009 Karnail Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus Ram Tirath ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Amit Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.C. Suman, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendants have challenged the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dated 25.1.2006, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction filed by the plaintiff was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of averment that the parties are co-owner of the suit property has submitted that a co-sharer can raise construction over the area in his exclusive possession. He has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in Satish Chander Sethi v. M/s. Chunilal Shyam Sunder, 1996 (1) CCC 164 (P&H) in support of his submission. CR No. 5746 of 2008 -2- On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders passed by the courts below. The trial court allowed the application for interim injunction of the plaintiff-respondent filed along with the suit and restrained the defendants from raising further construction over the suit property illegally, forcibly except in due course of law and without having partitioned the same. The said order was affirmed by the lower appellate court on appeal. The relevant observations of the lower appellate court recorded in paras 10 and 11 of its judgment, read thus:- “10. Copies of jamabandis of the property have been placed on the record, according to which Ram Tirath, Brij Mohan sons of Davinder Kumar, Santosh Kumari, Karnail Singh, Paramjit Singh, Amarjit Singh and Kuldip Singh sons of Bhola have been shown as co-owners in joint possession of the parties. No document has been placed on record by the defendants/appellants to show that they are in exclusive possession of the property as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint where they are raising construction. There is also report of the Local Commissioner, who was appointed during the pendency of the case and he has also reported that some construction in the suit property has been raised by way of foundations which has been shown in the CR No. 5746 of 2008 -3- photographs. Plea of the defendants/ appellants is that whatever construction has been raised in the property in dispute that has been raised with the oral consent of the plaintiff/respondent but there is nothing on the record regarding the said consent. 11. As the property has been shown joint between the parties and the parties are co-sharers in joint possession, defendants/appellants have no right to raise any construction on specific portion and more than their shares which is not in their exclusive possession without getting it partitioned during the pendency of the case. The learned lower court has rightly restrained the defendants/appellants from raising the construction over the suit property illegally, forcibly and otherwise in due course of law and without having partition, during the pendency of the case and this order do not call for any interference and is upheld.” There is no dispute with regard to the legal position enunciated in Satish Chander Sethi's case (supra) but the said judgment does not help the case of the petitioners as they are not found to be in exclusive possession of the suit property where they want to raise construction. CR No. 5746 of 2008 -4- No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the orders passed by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 27, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE