The conduct of the parties plays an important role in granting or refusing injunction, and the petitioner's conduct must be free from blame to be entitled to equitable relief.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by learned District Judge, Mandi whereby he set-aside the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of injunction.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction on the ground that the suit land was jointly owned and possessed by the parties and therefore, until and unless partition is carried out by metes and bounds, the respondents be restrained from raising construction over the best piece of the land. It was further submitted that once the proceedings for partition were pending before the leaned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, then it was of the more reasons that the respondents ought to be restrained. Similar prayer was made in the application for interim injunction.

3. The respondents contested the suit as also the application by raising various preliminary objections like maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppel, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, valuation and jurisdiction. On merits, it was pleaded that the parties to the lis were in separate possession under family arrangement and that the petitioner had already constructed a house over the suit land. The pendency of the partition proceedings was admitted, but it was denied that the respondents were raising construction on the best part of the suit land, rather it was specifically stated that construction being raised was on a part of Khasra No. 160 which was not abutting to Pairi road.

4. The learned trial Court granted the application by directing the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land till the disposal of the suit. This order was questioned in appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, who reversed the order passed by the trial Court and ordered the dismissal of the application. It is against this order that the instant petition has been filed on the ground that once the parties were recorded in joint ownership and possession, then there was no occasion for the learned lower Appellate Court to have dismissed the application when partition had not been effected and proceeding qua the same were admittedly pending before the Collector. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.

5. It is not in dispute that the suit land comprises of a fairly big chunk of land wherein the petitioner is having 1/4th share, whereas the respondents are owners to the extent of half share. It is also not in dispute that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, she has already constructed two house(s) over the suit land. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to dispute this position but then the pleadings in the suit stand in the way of the petitioner. The respondents in para 3 of the written statement had clearly averred as under:

“…..The plaintiff has already constructed two houses and two cow-sheds over the better portion of the suit land and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have not constructed any house over the suit land as yet. Photographs of the house of plaintiff snapped over the suit land are attached herewith for kind perusal of the learned Court, which fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff from this learned Court and thus, the plaintiff has not come with clean hands before the learned Court for redressal ; hence she is not entitled for any equitable relief of injunction against the defendants…”

6. In response to the aforesaid averments, the petitioner in the replication has only come out with the simplicitor denial as would be evident from para-3 of the replication which reads thus:

“3. That para No. 3 of the written statement is also wrong hence denied and that para of the plaint is reaffirmed to be correct.”

7. Even if the entire replication is read, it would evident that the petitioner has not at all