IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 163 CR-4199-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Zile Singh and another . . . . Petitioners Vs. Mani Ram . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Petitioners herein are the defendants in Civil Suit No.CIS-1018- 2025 title Mani Ram Vs. Zile Singh and another, pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram. They have assailed the orders dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P4) passed by the trial Court and the order dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure P5) passed by the Appellate Court, whereby the Courts behalf have directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the property in dispute. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in dispute had fallen to the share of the petitioners in an oral partition and, therefore, the Courts below were not justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo. 4. The contention does not merit acceptance. During the course of hearing, learned counsel fairly conceded that the parties continue to be co- sharers in the suit property. It has also not been disputed that although a preliminary decree has been passed in an earlier partition suit, the proceedings for preparation of the final decree are still pending and no specific portion of the joint property has yet been allotted to any party by metes and bounds. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4199-2026 2026:PHHC: 094877 5. It is a settled principle of law that until a partition is finally effected by metes and bounds, every co-sharer is deemed to be in joint possession of each and every part of the joint property. Mere assertion of an oral partition, particularly when the rights of the parties are yet to be crystallized in the final decree proceedings, cannot confer upon one co-sharer an exclusive right to alter the nature of any specific portion of the joint property to the prejudice of the others. Any construction raised by one co-sharer during the pendency of partition proceedings is capable of creating equities, complicating execution of the final decree and giving rise to avoidable litigation. 6. The learned Trial Court, while granting the interim order of status quo, has exercised its discretion with the object of preserving the subject matter of the suit pending adjudication of the rights of the parties. The Appellate Court has independently re-examined the matter and affirmed the said view. The impugned orders merely maintain the existing state of affairs and do not confer any additional right upon either party. On the contrary, they ensure that the property remains intact until the rights of the parties are finally determined. 7. It is equally well settled that grant or refusal of an interim injunction is a discretionary relief. The supervisory/revisional jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to substitute its own discretion for that exercised by the Courts below unless the impugned orders are shown to suffer from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any such infirmity warranting interference. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 13.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document