IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1689 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th July, 2009. Prem Singh Petitioner through Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate Versus Harmit Singh and others. Respondents through Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the orders dated 11.6.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Fatehgarh Sahib as well as dated 12.3.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, granting ad-interim injunction in part, to the petitioner – plaintiff. The petitioner has filed a suit for Permanent Injunction to restrain the respondent – defendants from alienating the suit property more than their share and not to raise any construction over the suit property or to cut the trees standing there upon which might change the nature of the land. The suit property comprising Khasra Nos.159[0-6], 77 [3-0] is a piece of land situated within the revenue estate of village Kheri Bir Singh, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. While deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the courts below have restrained the respondent – defendants from alienating the suit property more than their share and specific khasra numbers. The respondents have been further restrained from cutting the trees standing in the suit property or changing the nature of the same. As regards the construction, the Courts below have permitted the respondent – defendants to raise construction qua their share only and not on the entire suit property. The petitioner's grievance is that no construction ought to have been permitted during the pendency of the suit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that no case to interfere with the impugned orders to the extent the same have permitted the respondent – defendants to raise construction within their share is called for. However, keeping in view the fact that the partition proceedings have already been initiated by the petitioner before the Revenue Authorities, it is directed that the construction, if any, shall be raised by the respondent-defendants at their own risk and peril and no undue benefit thereof shall be taken in the partition proceedings or otherwise. In case the land where the construction is raised by the respondents or any part thereof, falls to the share of the petitioner, the respondents shall be liable to remove the said construction at their own costs and responsibility. Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. July 14, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE