Co-sharers are entitled to protect the nature of the suit land and prevent changes to its character. The court must consider the balance of convenience and the potential irreparable harm in granting injunctions.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) challenges order dated 29.4.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar which has reversed the order dated 22.3.2002 of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) refusing the relief of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from raising any further construction on specific portion of the suit property without getting the same partitioned. The Civil Judge in his order dated 22.3.2002 had allowed the defendant-petitioners to raise construction during the pendency of the suit subject to final partition of the suit property. In other words, the prayer of the plaintiff-respondents was declined.

2. The facts which are necessary to put the controversy in its proper perspective may first be noticed. Plaintiff-respondents filed Civil Suit No. 4 of 3.1.2002 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from raising any sort of construction, changing the nature of the suit land situated in the area of Village Malakpur. H.B. No. 35, Tehsil and District Rupnagar. Along with the suit an application was also filed claiming that the plaintiff-respondents being co-sharer in the suit property along with the defendant-petitioners were entitled to temporary injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from raising any construction over the superior and valuable portion of the suit property. The plaintiff-respondents failed to persuade the Civil Judge to accept their prayer for ad interm injunction. The reasons which prevailed upon the Civil Judge to decline the application of the plaintiff-respondents were that Pritam Kaur plaintiff-respondent No. 3 has already installed a tubewell in a part of the suit land. Therefore, it was thought inequitable to restrain the defendant-petitioners from raising any construction on another portion of the land. Plaintiff-respondent No. 3 Pritam Kaur too has been in possession of specific portion of the suit land. The Civil Judge also referred to the entries in Aks Shajra to conclude that the suit land adjoins the main Ropar-Nangal road. Therefore, on that basis the Civil Judge dismissed the application of the plaintiff-respondents.

3. On appeal, filed against the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar was persuaded to reach the conclusion that the construction which is sought to be raised by the defendant-petitioner is in the middle of the front portion of the suit land. They have already raised four walls on the site. It also came to the conclusion that if the construction is permitted to be raised in the valuable portion of the front side that too in the middle of the suit land, then the land cannot be properly utilized by the other co-sharers. Disagreeing with the reasoning given by the Civil Judge that Pritam Kaur plaintiff-respondent No. 3 has also installed a tubewell, the Additional District Judge held that installation of tubewell is natural for cultivation of the suit land, whereas construction on the land for commercial use is entirely different. The Additional District Judge also felt that nature of construction sought to be raised by the defendant-petitioners is such that it would amount to ouster of rights of other co-sharers as they will not be able to utilize the suit property properly. Such a right cannot be allowed to be violated without getting the land partitioned. Accordingly, the plaintiff-respondents gave an undertaking that they would file partition application before the competent authority within one month from the date of that order and in case of their failure, the stay order passed by the Additional District Judge was to become inoperative automatically. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, the defendant-petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

4. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners