Pankaj Bhandari, J.

The petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2016, vide which the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff has filed a simpliciter suit for injunction with relation to a joint property and as there is no relief for partition, the simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable.

3. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that the court cannot grant injunction under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when equally efficacious relief can be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding.

4. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kishan Singh v. Sucha Singh, 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 755 (P & H), Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh, (2000) 126 PLR 416 and Chedi Lal & Anr. v. Chhotey Lal, AIR 1951 All. 199.

5. Counsel for the plaintiffs/non-petitioners have opposed the revision petition. Their contention is that a simple suit for injunction can be filed and there is no bar in filing such a suit. It is also contended that in all the rulings cited by counsel for the petitioner, there is none which holds that the suit is barred under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

6. It is further contended that in the plaint itself, the plaintiff has mentioned that the defendant without obtaining permission from the Jodhpur Development Authority is converting the use of the land from residential to commercial and he is not authorised to make any alteration without the consent of the other co-owners. It is also contended that there is no requirement of filing a suit for partition as the plaintiff is only claiming injunction to restrain the defendant from changing the use of land from residential to commercial without obtaining sanction from the JDA and without seeking permission from the other co-sharers.

7. In support of their contentions, counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on Kamala & Ors. v. K.T. Eshwara SA & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 661, wherein the Apex court has observed that the contentions raised for rejection of the suit involve various questions, which could not be considered at the stage of Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and thus, held the rejection of the plaint as improper.

8. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have also perused Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and the judgments cited by counsel for the parties before the Court.

9. It would be appropriate to first deal with the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner.

10. Kishan Singh v. Sucha Singh (supra) was a case where the suit simpliciter for injunction was filed against the alleged co-sharer, who was in exclusive possession. The Court in that case observed that the plaintiff could assert his right by filing a suit for partition, and a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable.

11. Bachan Singh v. Swaran Singh (supra) was a case, wherein the Court held that a co-owner, who is not in possession of any part of the property is not entitled to seek an injunction against another co-owner, unless any act of the person in possession amounts to ouster, prejudicial or adverse to the interest of co-owner out of possession. It was observed that mere making of construction or improvement of the common property does not amount to ouster. The Court further observed that if by the act of the co-owner in possession, the value or utility of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunction to prevent diminution of the value or utility of the property. It was further observed that if the acts of co-owner in possession are detrimental to the interest of the other co-owners, then a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunction. Except these eventualities, the remedy of the co-owner out of possession is to seek partition.

12. In Chedi Lal & Anr. v. Chhotey Lal (su