IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 2367 of 2006. Date of Decision: 19th February, 2008. Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. S.S.Rangi Advocate Versus Gurinderjit Singh ...Respondent through Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura whereby on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, moved by the respondent-plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction, the petitioner-defendant has been restrained from raising any construction over a specific portion and more than his share out of the suit land as well as against the order dated 7.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala upholding the afore- stated order. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging, inter-alia, that the subject land is a joint holding and unless partition takes place, the petitioner-defendant can not raise construction or a specific Khasra Number and/or more than his share. Civil Revision No. 2367 of 2006. ::-2-:: Both the courts below, on the basis of revenue record and other material, have prima facie found that no partition has taken place so far, therefore, the petitioner can not be permitted to raise construction, to the pre-judice of his other co-sharers. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 (Annexure P-6). The revenue record depicts that the respondent/plaintiff along with others is a co-sharer in the suit land. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the view formed by the courts below inasmuch as unless the shares are partitioned and the parties are put in possession of their respective holdings, the petitioner can not be permitted to raise construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon the recitals in the sale deed whereby he purchased the land. As per those recitals, the petitioner was delivered possession of the plot with specific metes and bounds. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff is not a party to the said sale deed. For the reasons afore-stated, this revision petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the nature of controversy, learned Civil Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial proceedings as early as possible and preferably within one year from the date a certified copy of this order is received. February 19, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE