C.R. No. 981 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 981 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.2.2009 Pirthi Singh and another .. Petitioners v. Satyam Educational Society (Regd.) .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. K. Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiffs are being this court against the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application filed by them for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the respondent-defendant from raising construction on the land in dispute was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from raising construction on the suit land and from changing the nature thereof. It was alleged that total land measuring 187 kanals and 5 marlas is owned by “JUMLA MUSHTARKA MALKAN WAHDIGAR HAZDARAN HASAB RASAD RAQBA KHEWAT”. The petitioners-plaintiffs being proprietors of the village are co-sharers in the suit land and the property having not been partitioned with meets and bounds, the respondent-defendant should not be permitted to raise any construction thereon. Both the courts below considered the claim made by the petitioners-plaintiffs threadbare and did not find prima facie case for grant of interim injunction in their favour. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that share of the petitioners in the total khewat of 187 kanals and 5 marlas is merely to the extent of 6 marlas and they are in actual possession of the land to that extent. It is stated that the respondent, who is in possession of 4 kanals and 2 marlas of land, is seeking to raise construction without the property having been partitioned. However, I do not find any reason to restrain the respondent from raising any construction on the suit land for the reason that the petitioners are in possession of the land to the extent of their share in a bigger khewat. The respondent had C.R. No. 981 of 2009 [2] purchased 4 kanals and 2 marlas of land with possession from the earlier owners in possession of the land. It has further been noticed by the learned court below that the respondent was raising construction on the portion of the land after obtaining “No Objection Certificate” from the District Town Planner. Once the share holders are continuing in possession of the land to the extent of their holding, I do not find any reason to restrain the respondent from raising construction on the suit land. Accordingly, while concurring with the views expressed by the learned courts below, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.2.2009 mk