Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Plaintiff/petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 20.09.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jalandhar was set aside and order of status quo was vacated, has filed this revision petition.

2. Brief facts as gathered from the record are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the exclusive owner in possession of suit land. Permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession and construction of the plaintiff. Along with plaint, an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed and the same was decided by the trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2015 whereby status quo was ordered to be maintained regarding possession of the suit property, on the premise that the defendants were to prove their exclusive possession, so as to counter the assertion of the plaintiff, who had the recital of sale deed in his favour. Lower Appellate Court reversed the order dated 11.03.2015 vide order dated 20.09.2016.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff has sought declaration of ownership on the basis of his exclusive possession on the strength of sale deed dated 11.03.2014 vide which the plaintiff had purchased suit land from Jaswinder Kaur wife of Faqir Singh as general power of attorney of Faqir Singh. Mutation was sanctioned on the basis of aforesaid sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed himself to be in possession of the suit property since the time of its purchase. Plaintiff asserted that some time back when he tried to raise construction, he came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 4 along with some anti-social elements were trying to take forcible possession of the suit property by alleging that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the plot. Defendants could not succeed in their evil design. Defendant No.5 was in possession of the adjacent plot. At the time of execution of sale deed, said plot was demarcated by the general power of attorney of the original owner in the presence of defendant No.5. Possession was delivered by the attorney to the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 started proclaiming title of the suit land and also approached the local police. With this background the suit came to be filed.

5. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they claimed title of the property having purchased 18 Marlas of land vide sale deed dated 01.02.2013. The attorney in favour of Jaswinder Kaur was claimed to be vague. No specific share of Faqir Singh was mentioned therein. Suit was contested on all counts. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 claimed themselves to be bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration of the land and were in possession. Defendant No.2 being owner of 12 Marlas of land applied retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for the installation of petrol pump and got the procedural work completed including preparation of layout plan, site plan and approval from the District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. Defendant No.2 also got No Objection Certificate from different Departments of the Government on the basis of his clear title. Defendant No.5 also contested the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff being in possession of the land on the strength of sale deed was entitled to ad interim injunction till final decision of the suit. Learned counsel relied upon T. Lakshmipathi and others vs. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others, (2003) 5 SCC to contend that one of the co-sharer cannot take exclusive possession of the property, nor committ an act of waste, ouster or legitimate use of the land as by doing so, he would render the whole of the property unfit for the use of other co-owners and great prejudice would be