IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.177 of 2010 Date of decision : July 23, 2010 Mahinder Chand …Petitioner. Versus Rajeev Chand and others …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners are plaintiffs in a suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge. Suit has been filed by them against the respondents-defendants, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining them from raising any construction on land bearing Khasra Nos.928/665, 667 and 685. The land is alleged to be joint of the parties. Partition proceedings are alleged to be pending with the Revenue Officer. Defendants, without waiting for the outcome of those proceedings, are alleged to have started taking steps to raise construction on the joint property, without the consent of the petitioners- plaintiffs. 2. An application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was also submitted, seeking Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… issuance of temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. Trial Court allowed that application. Appeal was filed against the order of the trial Court. Learned District Judge has partly accepted the appeal and ordered that no construction shall be raised on Khasra No.928/665, which abuts on the road, but construction on the other two Khasra numbers may be raised and the site on which construction will be so raised would also be subject to partition. Petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved by this order. According to them, nature of suit property, which is joint, cannot be changed, without their consent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Respondents deny that the property is joint, but they do not deny that partition proceedings are pending before the Revenue Officer. Entries in the revenue papers show that the property is joint. That means petitioners- plaintiffs have a prima facie case. Two Courts below have also observed that the property is joint. If that is so, no party can be permitted to change the nature of the suit property, without the consent of the other. Consequently, the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is allowed, impugned order of District Judge, passed in appeal, is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. 5. Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest possible. Revenue Officer, before whom application for partition is pending, is also directed to dispose …3… of the same expeditiously and in any case before 31st March, 2011, in case the parties co-operate. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. July 23, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J