IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4008 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.8.2009 Kanwaljit Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus Smt. Amarjit Kaur and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by them under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed and also the order dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) vide which, on appeal, that order was affirmed by the lower appellate court. The trial court while dismissing the application for ad interim injunction of the plaintiff-petitioners had, in para 9 of its order, recorded as under:- “9. Plaintiffs have failed to bring on record any cogent piece of evidence at this stage regarding their possession over any specific portion of the land. At this stage, it cannot be decided as to whether any alleged oral family settlement was entered into in favour of plaintiffs by defendant No.1. This fact is a CR No. 4008 of 2009 -2- matter of evidence. Defendants have produced letter dated 21.1.2000 in which daughter of plaintiff no.3 has assured the defendant of taking due care of their property. If plaintiff no.3 has sold the property measuring 250 sq. yards, she could do so qua her own share. I agree with the contention raised by Ld. counsel for defendants that every co-owner is entitled to every inch of the suit land and has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner. At this stage, it is not clear from the perusal of the record as to who is in possession of which specific share of the suit land. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to pass injunction order as sought by the plaintiffs.” The said order of the trial court was affirmed on appeal by the lower appellate court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the file, this Court is of the opinion that there being uncertainty regarding possession of the plaintiffs over any specific portion of the suit land, no ground for interference with the orders impugned herein by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. August 18, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE