In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 69 of 2009 Date of decision: April 30, 2009 Krishan .. Petitioner Vs. Karan Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Legality of the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul accepting the appeal of the defendants- respondents and dismissing the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interrupting and using joint well and pumping set, has been challenged. The petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner'), Karan Singh and Bishambar Dayal (since deceased) are brothers and as such the respondents are their successors in interest. They have a joint land in village Ratta Kalan over which they had installed electric connection in the name of Bahadur Singh respondent No.1 in the year 1972. The connection was obtained in the name of the respondent No.1 because he was in army and they had not to suffer any inconvenience in seeking connection. Now on refusal made by the respondent No.1 to interfere in the pumping set and the connection the suit was filed. The suit contested by the respondents stating that the connection was taken by the respondent No.1 from his own funds, however, it was installed in the joint land as well as in the joint well. It was further stated that since he had filed an affidavit on 6.10.1993 that he had no objection to the installing of the pumping set in the joint well that proves his ownership over the pumping set and the petitioner could not claim any right over the same. It has been further averred that the respondents No.4 and 5 had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- for using this pumping set in question, Civil Revision No. 69 of 2009 -2- *** therefore, they had become the co-sharers to the extent of 1/3rd share by way of writing dated 19.1.1999 on which Bishamber Dayal respondent No.1, 4 and 5 put their signatures, therefore, the respondent No.1 is the co-sharer to the extent of 2/3rd share of the pumping set and the respondents No. 4 and 5 were co-sharers to the extent of 1/3rd share. As per writing dated 19.1.1999, the petitioner has no concern with the said connection and pumping set. During the course of arguments, it was not disputed that the parties are co-sharers in a big chunk of land being the brothers and their successors in interest. No partition has so far taken place. The respondent No.1 was in the army. It is also not disputed that the land as well as the well wherein the pumping set has been installed is still joint. The respondent No.1 has placed reliance on an affidavit dated 6.1.1993, wherein, he disclosed his intention that the petitioner could also install pumping set in his own name and he has no objection, but said document being admission in his own favour cannot be used against the petitioner. The electric connection against which the pumping set was installed is also in the joint land. In the common parlance, if we peep into the olden years, all the acts were done in the name of the head of the family, though from the joint funds. As such, the pumping set was installed in the joint land in the name of Bahadur Singh who was eldest in the family and was an army personnel. The said pumping set was used jointly since 1972 without any objection from the joint owners. It is not the case of the respondents that the land of the petitioner was partitioned at any point of time and he was irrigating the same from a different source. Now it appears that after sons of Bashmber Dayal have paid him for the pumping set (in the circumstances not coming forth), he has put his arms against the petitioner. In any case, at the time of grant of injunction, the courts are required to consider three ingredients i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable loss. Irreparable loss could be termed as a loss or damage likely to be caused in case the injunction is declined in his favour. Refusal to use of pumping set as he has been doing since 1972 would amount to deprivation of its rights and also that he will suffer serious damage to his crops and loss of source of irrigation. Civil Revision No. 69 of 2009 -3- *** Now the question whether pumping set was installed by the respondent No.1 out of his own funds and it was his exclusive ownership is still to be determined during the course of trial. A similar proposition arose in case Om Parkash and others vs. Ishwar Singh and others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 777 wherein the court while examining the comparative loss decided the injunction in favour of the petitioner. Thus, on conspectus of all the circumstances, this petition is allowed, impugned order dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) is set aside and the order dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court is restored. April 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge