[155] Prem Singh Sonpal and Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] 13.12.2024 the learned constructio Trial Court [2] made in th possession permanen seek partiti fact that th partition o maintainab IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR CR-57-202 Date of De Singh versus al and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition is .2024 passed by learned Additional earned Appellate Court ordered that truction activity whatsoever in the su Court had declined ad interim status q Counsel for the petitioner su in the plaint itself, it is evident tha ession of their respective shares. Onc anent injunction itself was not maintai partition by metes and bounds. He fu that the parties were already before tion of the land, instant suit for tainable. OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 2025 (O&M) of Decision : 14.01.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN ocate for the petitioner. ion is directed against order date tional District Judge, Palwal, whereb that neither party shall carry out an the suit land even though the learne tus quo vide order dated 09.12.2024. ner submits that as per the avermen nt that all the parties are in exclusiv . Once that being the position, suit fo aintainable and the only remedy was He further submits that in view of th before the revenue authorities seekin t for permanent injunction was n r dated hereby, out any learned .2024. erments xclusive suit for y was to w of the seeking as not RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-57-202 [3] laid down Swaran Si amount to a injunction a of a particu [4] through the [5] should hav further com revision pe to decide t without bei Court and [6] his approac written sta disposal of [7] disposed of 14.01.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 2025 (O&M) Counsel for the petitioner furt down by the Division Bench of this an Singh’, 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 70 nt to alteration of the nature of the lan ction against other co-sharer, who is a particular piece of land for raising any I have heard counsel for the p gh the record of the case. In the considered opinion of th ld have been loathe in entertaining app er commenting on the merits of th ion petition is disposed off with the di cide the application under Order 39 out being prejudiced by the observatio t and strictly in accordance with the se It is worth mentioning that the pproach. The petitioner has opted to statement for bringing his stand sal of application under Order 39 Rule All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable -2- er further submits that in terms of la f this Court in ‘Bachan Singh vers 70, raising of construction does n the land and thus, co-sharer cannot see ho is admittedly in exclusive possessio g any construction. r the petitioner and have carefully gon n of this Court, learned Appellate Cou ing appeal at ad interim stage. Witho of the impugned order, the prese the directions to the learned Trial Cou er 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC expeditious rvations made by the learned Appella settled propositions of the law. hat the petitioner also has been casual ted to run to this Court instead of filin stand on record and press for speed 9 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. ous application(s), if any, also stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No s of law versus oes not seek ssession gone te Court Without present al Court itiously ppellate asual in filing speedy stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document