IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6032 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.9.2009 Jai Pal ....Petitioner. Versus Smart Housing Pvt. Ltd. And another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by him under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the suit property, was dismissed and also against the order dated 14.8.2008 vide which the order of the trial court was upheld by the lower appellate court. The trial court while dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner has observed that defendants No.1 and 2 were, prima facie, proved to be owners in joint possession of the suit property and that a co-sharer had no right to seek injunction against other co-sharers. The trial court further observed that the plaintiff had not been able to C.R. No. 6032 of 2008 -2- show his exclusive possession over any specific portion of the suit property and on that basis, the trial court declined the injunction to the plaintiff. The said order of the trial court was affirmed on appeal by the lower appellate court. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and perused the case file. In view of the observations of the courts below, referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the application for ad-interim injunction was rightly dismissed by the courts below and there is no illegality or perversity in the orders impugned herein, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 8, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE