Civil Revision No.6328 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6328 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: July 14, 2011 Moola and others .....Petitioners v. Net Ram .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners for setting aside order dated 20.9.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff against order dated 31.8.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned trial Court was accepted and present petitioners-defendants were restrained from raising any construction over property in dispute bearing Khasra no.138, Village Berampur, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon, during pendency of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the orders passed by learned courts below. Respondent-plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining petitioners-defendants from raising any sort of construction over more than their 1/4th share in the plot in suit, fully detailed and described in Civil Revision No.6328 of 2010(O&M) -2- para no.4 of the plaint, marked by letters `ABCD' and shown red in colour in the site plan attached with the plaint, without partition of the same by metes and bounds. The property has been described as a plot, total measuring 400 sq.yards, and it is averred that plaintiff is owner in possession of the ½ share of the plot as he inherited the same from his father Shri Lekh Ram and from his uncle Shri Gopi. On the same facts application for ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. Suit as well as application has been contested by present petitioners-defendants by taking the plea that they are coming as owners in possession of the property bearing khasra No.136, which was purchased by them from previous owner Badley vide registered sale deed dated 22.2.2008 and mutation bearing no.1981 was also sanctioned on the basis of the same. Plea has been taken that Gopi Chand was having no concern with Khasra No.136 and hence, question of giving any share to the plaintiff did not arise. It has also been contended that boundaries and area have not been correctly mentioned in the plaint and, however in the garb of the same, plaintiff intends to harass the defendants and intends to interfere in their possession as owner over khasra no.136. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to show that he alongwith defendants and other co-sharers is owner of the property in dispute, as mentioned in para no.4 of the plaint and hence, finding no prima facie case in favour of respondent-plaintiff, application filed by him for ad interim injunction order was dismissed. In appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff, learned first appellate court accepted the appeal restraining present petitioners-defendants from Civil Revision No.6328 of 2010(O&M) -3- raising any construction over the property bearing khasra no.136, Village Berampur, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon. Perusal of jamabandi Annexure RX shows that Badle has been recorded as owner of khasra no.136, though Bobda has been recorded as cultivator of the same. The present petitioners-defendants have purchased the said khasra number from Badle. The present suit has not been filed by respondent-plaintiff regarding khasra no.136. Rather the suit has been filed regarding some other property measuring 400 sq.yards. From the site plan filed alongwith the suit, it is not clear as to whether the property regarding which the present suit has been filed is the same which was purchased by respondents-defendants from Badle. It has also not been clarified as to how he has become co-owner in the said khasra number. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent-plaintiff has failed to show prima facie that he is co-owner in the land forming part of khasra no.136, which was purchased by the present petitioners-defendants from the previous owner Badle. Moreover part construction has already been started by petitioners-defendants over the property, which was purchased by them, which has been shown in photographs, Annexures P9 and P10. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that even plaintiff has also constructed his house adjacent to the property purchased by petitioners-defendants and the same has been shown in photograph, Annexure P8. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, at the time of arguments. Hence, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that when part construction has already been raised by petitioners-defendants, they will suffer an irreparable loss and injury if they Civil Revision No.6328 of 2010(O&M) -4- are not allowed to complete the construction. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court is set aside, whereas order passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, is restored. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. 14.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge