CR No.7067 of 2009 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7067 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision:23.07.2010 Biasa Devi and others ..Appellants Versus Joginder Singh .. Respondent 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.Dharampal, Advocate for Mr. H.K.Brinda, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. (ORAL) The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from interfering in their peaceful joint possession and also restraining the petitioners from raising any kind of construction/super-structure over any specific portion in the suit land measuring 21 Kanals 16 Marlas bearing Khewat No.252, Khatoni No.345, Khasra Nos.90-R/3(8-0), 4/1(2-0), 4/2(5-4), 8 (6-12) as per Fard Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 situated in the Village Bela Dhiani, H.B. No.261, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar without any legal and final partition. The petitioners contested the aforesaid suit by filing a written statement wherein it was submitted that they are in possession of the suit land being gair marusi tenants. It was further submitted that partition proceedings were also pending. It was also submitted that even the plaintiff (respondent herein) had raised construction in Khasra No.90R/7(7-4) which was in excess of his share. It was submitted that the CR No.7067 of 2009 (O & M) ::2:: suit land was in exclusive possession of the petitioners and the plaintiff- respondent had no concern with the same. Plaintiff-respondent has raised construction in Khasra No.90R/7, which is in excess of his area and he has no right to raise the objection with regard to the construction raised by the petitioners. Alongwith this suit, respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction. The Trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2009 allowed the aforesaid application for ad interim injunction and restrained the defendant-petitioners from raising any construction on any specific portion of the suit property during the pendency of the case or till the land was legally and finally partitioned between the parties as per law, whichever is earlier. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ropar vide impugned order dated 09.11.2009. On December 01, 2009 a contention was raised before this Court that petitioners were in possession of specific Khasra No.90R/3 (8-0) and have already constructed two rooms measuring 15 ft. x 12 ft. and 14 ft. x 12 ft. and being co-sharers they have got legal right to make constructions on the specific Khasra in their possession. Vide order dated 01.12.2009, this Court had also allowed the petitioners to extend the construction and they were held entitled to complete the construction of the aforesaid rooms by plastering the walls and affixation of doors and windows at their own responsibility subject to final decision of the present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are claiming themselves to be gair marusi tenants as per their pleadings in their written statement which was perused by this Court with the help of learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners have CR No.7067 of 2009 (O & M) ::3:: no right to raise construction in any specific portion of the suit property only on the basis of their possession of the aforesaid property. A gair marusi tenant has no right to change the nature of the property by raising construction therein. As such, prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and thus, I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Moreover, partition proceedings are pending between the co-owners before competent Court of law. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the controversy raised and the fact that some construction has been found in the land which is in possession of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) July 23, 2010 JUDGE Sukhpreet