ORDER :

1. Issue notice. Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned senior counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

2. The matter is taken up for final consideration at this stage keeping in view the subject matter of the petition and as the counsels have argued the matter in length.

3. The petitioner through the medium of the present petition has challenged the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kathua, whereby the order of status quo passed by the trial court vide order dated 05.04.2021 is modified. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein has argued that there was no reason for the appellate court to pass the impugned order as the same will only result into multiplicity of the proceedings, the petitioner shall be non- suited and moreover in case the respondent is allowed to raise the construction the property of the petitioner shall be put to loss.

4. Mr. Rahul Bharti, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the trial court has passed the order keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case. The order impugned in the present petition if allowed to stand shall not cause any infringement of the rights of the petitioner if the suit is finally decided in favour of the petitioner. The respondent had already raised some construction by the time the petitioner herein had obtained order of status quo against the respondent and the appellate court has only allowed completion of construction with reasonable rider.

5. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent-defendant with averments that the plaintiff and the performa defendant are co-sharer/co-owner and in joint possession of the suit land and the same has not been partitioned till date. None has any right to change the nature and user of the land in question or transfer the same till the land is partitioned amongst the co-sharer/co-owner. The respondent intends to change the nature of the property by raising construction and further intends to alienate the same.

6. The respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner as is evident from the order of the trial court as well as order impugned in the present petition. The respondent is in possession of his own share as the suit land is partitioned about 50 years back; the application filed before the Tehsildar Mahanpur on the ground that the land is not partitioned stands withdrawn by the petitioner on 18.01.2021 are some of the pleas taken by the respondent in defence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in case the construction is raised by the respondent herein the same shall cause infringement to the rights of the petitioner and the water exiting from the house of the plaintiff is to damage the construction raised by the petitioner. The property being not partitioned till date the respondent has no right to change user of the suit land.

8. The appellate court has taken note of report of Revenue Officer that the respondent is raising construction on seven (7) marlas of the total suit land. There appears to be no denial to this fact as mentioned in the impugned order. The appellate court has also noted that the respondent herein has raised the construction upto window level. It is in this context that the order of the status quo passed by the learned trial court was modified by the appellate court. It is trite proposition of law that one co-sharer/co-owner cannot seek injunction against another co-sharer/co-owner unless there is reasonable apprehension that the act of the co-sharer/co-owner shall cause irreparable loss or damage to the property or infringe the rights of the co-sharers in the property. The property is partitioned or not is a matter of trial. The interim injunction cannot be granted in favour of the party on mere asking and the party is required to satisfy all the conditions that are required for the same.

9. The perusal of the plaint, copy of which is on record, does not specify in any manner as what so