CR No.3661 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3661 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:14.07.2010 Mahender ..Petitioner Versus Smt.Savitri and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Sanjay Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. (ORAL) This is plaintiff's (petitioner herein) revision petition challenging the impugned order passed by the Courts below whereby his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for granting ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from restoring the water course in dispute was rejected. As per the averments, the petitioner is a co-sharer in the land which was allegedly partitioned and the suit land fell to the share of the petitioner and thus, he alleges himself to be in exclusive possession of the same. It is further alleged by him that vide an order passed under the provisions of Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, sub-Divisional Canal Officer, sub-Divisional Canal, Jhajjar had ordered restoration of water course in dispute alleged to be passing through fields of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no water course is in existence. The Courts below while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, have found that whether the plaintiff was in exclusive possession CR No.3661 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: as owner of the suit land on the basis of alleged mutual partition amongst the co-sharer, is a matter of evidence and at this stage there was no material on record to corroborate the same. It was also found that the alleged water course was being restored on the basis of an order passed by the competent authority. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) July 14, 2010 JUDGE Sukhpreet