JUDGMENT

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) - The petitioners have impugned the order dated 19.09.2016 whereby an application of the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed as well as the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by the Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners there against had been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were in exclusive possession of the land which was jointly owned by them and the defendant and therefore, the injunction could not have been granted by the Courts below. He also contends that the land had been partitioned on the basis of oral partition and the petitioners were well within their rights to carry out construction on the land in their share.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contends that the land in dispute was jointly owned by the petitioners and the respondent and they were in joint possession of the same. He also contends that the land had not been partitioned and therefore, the petitioners have been rightly injuncted from raising any construction on the land.

Heard.

4. The respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining th