Judgment

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by lower Appellate Court, whereby, an appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), was allowed and consequently, the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and @ CPC, was allowed.

2. The facts, as culled out, from the paper-book are that, initially, Om Parkash, son of Moji Ram had filed a suit against Randhir Singh, Maan Singh, Mewa Singh, Vijay Singh, Ramesh and Smt. Santo-defendants, who are the petitioners, in the present revision petition, thereby, seeking issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering into joint possession of the land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, as per Jamabandi for the year 2013-2014 and further to restrain the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land in any manner and restraining from raising any type of construction on the suit land and further to restrain them from depriving the plaintiff from the joint possession of the suit land.

3. In the suit, it is averred that the agricultural land, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, is joint of the parties and has not been partitioned, so far. The plaintiff had filed an application for partition of the same before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Tosham, which is pending. The suit land is a valuable piece of land and the same abuts on the northern side of the pucca road, which leads from Siwani to Bhiwani. The plaintiff, defendants and other co-sharers are joint owners in possession of the suit land and no one is in specific possession over any part of the suit land. The defendants are bent upon to take forcible possession of the joint land and also bent upon to raise construction on the suit land. They have extended threats to raise construction and to take exclusive possession of the suit land, whereas, the defendants have no right to do so. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed.

4. The defendants (present petitioners) had made appearance. Defendant No.5 had filed the written statement, wherein, it was averred that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff is co-sharer in the suit land, with the defendants and one co-sharer, cannot claim injunction against other co-sharers and only remedy of partition is available. Even, the remaining defendants adopted the written statement/reply, filed by defendant No.5.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, vide order dated 11.06.2020, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was disposed of, while making observations, as herein given:-

“the parties to the suit are directed not to raise any construction on the suit property, beyond their share and if any construction is raised, the same shall be at its own risk and cost and the same shall not be deemed the proof of possession in the partition proceedings and the same shall be subject to the partition also. It was also observed that the parties to the suit shall not raise any construction on the suit property which will change the nature of suit property and which will diminish the use, utility and value of the suit property.”

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, plaintiff-respondent had filed an appeal, which was accepted by learned lower Appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 17.06.2020 and the order passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) was set aside.

7. Resultant