Civil Revision No.7736 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7736 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 15-01-2010 Surinder Kaur .... Petitioner VERSUS Smt. Avtar Kaur and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below whereby in a suit filed by the respondent – Avtar Kaur, the petitioner has been restrained from getting any electric connection installed and also further restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of respondents / plaintiffs on the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in question is joint between the parties and in addition to that Bikker Singh is also a co-sharer. The parties are in respective possession of their shares. In the partition proceedings which were initiated in June 1996 an order was passed by the revenue authorities which was set aside by the Commissioner and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for further consideration in view of the abservations made therein. However, thereafter Tehsildar passed a totally illegal order on 26.4.2002 and the respondents/plaintiffs are relying upon that order to claim interim injunction. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. As far as the illegality of the order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the Tehsildar is concerned. Though the petitioner is claiming the same to be illegal and against the order passed by the Commissioner remanding the case back to the Collector for further consideration but still the same was never challenged by the petitioner in any proceedings. It is only by way of counter-claim in the suit filed by the respondents that challenge to the aforesaid order was made. In these circumstances, the learned court had directed that the petitioner / defendant is Civil Revision No.7736 of 2009 -2- restrained from interfering into the possession of the respondents / plaintiffs and also getting the electric connection installed thereon as the same will prejudice to the case of the parties with the change in nature of the property during the pendency of the proceedings. No illegality can be found with such a direction. The petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 15.01.2010 JUDGE manju