A co-sharer has no right to raise construction on a particular piece of land until it is partitioned by metes and bounds.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This revision petition is against the order of the Additional District Judge dated 10.8.1992 affirming in appeal the order passed by the trial court, dismissing the petitioners application for grant of ad-interim stay in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.

2. Petitioner claimed himself to be a co-owner with the respondents in respect of land measuring 9 kanals 7 marlas as detailed in the plaint and so sought a restrain order against the respondents not to raise any construction till the joint holding is partitioned as it would otherwise become difficult to demolish the raised construction.

3. The claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the suit land already stands partitioned some 22 years back which fact is well known to the petitioner who infact has raised construction upon the area which fell to his share. So, the present suit is mala fide and filed with a view to harass the respondents-the defendants.

4. On consideration of the matter, trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case and that balance of convenience is also not in his favour and so declined to grant the ad-interim injunction as prayed for.

5. The appellate Court on reconsidering the merit also found no ground to vary or reverse the order of the trial court and so dismissed the appeal.

6. The revision petition was admitted in view of the decision of this court in Om Parkash and Ors. v. Chhaju Ram, (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 75 and ad interim stay as prayed for granted.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Courts below infact have erred in law in not properly construing the pleadings of the parties which has led to the passing of the impugned orders. According to the counsel, land is still joint and so a co-sharer even when he is in exclusive possession of a particular piece of land cannot raise any construction till it is partitioned by metes and bounds. Reference was made to the decisions of this Court in Om Parkashs case (supra) and Daulat Ram v. Dalip Singh (1989)1 P.L.R. 523.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argued that the assertion made by the petitioner that land is joint is factually incorrect. Infact suit land stands partitioned as is reflected in the copy of sanad taxim dated 20.8.1992 and the site plan annexed hereto, which documents have already been placed on record and marked as annexures R-l and R-2 before this Court. Thus there is no joint holding between the parties and on this ground alone the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders passed by the courts below as well as the other documents referred to by the respective counsel. There is no denying the fact that a co-sharer has no right to raise the construction till the land is partitioned by metes and bounds and so even when one of the co-sharers is in exclusive possession of a particular piece of land any other per- son can seek an injunction restraining the others from raising construction till the matter is finally decided. In the context of the present case, the documents placed on record by the respondents have come into existence during the pendency of the suit. No doubt, prima facie these documents lend support to the case of the respondents that the land has already been partitioned but these two documents have not been referred to by both the Courts. Perhaps these documents were not brought to the notice of the Courts below. It has also been brought to my notice that parties have almost led their evidence and case is ready for final disposal. This being so I find it appropriate that parties maintain status quo as it exists at the spot today and further direct the trial Court to decide the pending suit expeditiously.

10. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 15.12.1995.

11. Revision petition disposed of.