##PAGE1##

CR No. 9787 of 2025 :1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

112 CR No. 9787 of 2025

DATE OF DECISION :- 24.12.2025

Karan Singh and others ...Petitioners

Versus

Ravi Kumar and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Present:- Ms. Pallavi Babbar, Advocate for the petitioners.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, as well as the order dated 04.12.2025

passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, whereby the appeal

against the order dated 07.11.2025 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent

injunction claiming that he is a co-owner in possession of 8/39 share of the

suit property, while defendants No. 2 and 3 claim to be co-owners in

possession of 20/39 share of the suit property. Defendants No. 2 and 3 leased

out their share of the property in favour of defendant No. 1 through a

registered lease deed dated 07.03.2024. The suit property has not yet been

1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 06-01-2026 11:20:51 :::

CR No. 9787 of 2025 :2

partitioned. According to the petitioner, defendants No. 2 and 3 have no right

to lease out any specific or valuable portion of the suit land or to raise any

construction thereon. It is alleged that they are threatening to raise

construction in the form of a petrol pump without obtaining any no-

objection from the petitioner. Along with the suit, an application for

temporary injunction was filed seeking to restrain defendant No. 1 from

raising any construction in the form of a petrol pump.

3. The suit and the application were contested by the respondents,

who claimed that the suit land had already been partitioned among the co-

owners long ago and that each co-owner is in possession of a specific and

exclusive portion. It was further stated that several houses exist on the suit

property. Defendant No. 2 purchased land measuring 1870 square yards

through a sale deed dated 21.02.2006, and a specific portion was sold to

him. Defendants No. 2 and 3, being owners in possession of a specific

portion of the suit property measuring 1 kanal, leased the said portion to

defendant No. 1 for setting up a petrol pump. It was also asserted that all

necessary no-objection certificates have been obtained from the competent

authorities. It was further pleaded that the area in possession of defendant

No. 1 has a separate boundary wall, which was demolished and replaced by

a new boundary wall, and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the

injunction as prayed for.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the

application for injunction by order dated 07.11.2025. Aggrieved by the said

order, an appeal was filed. The learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal,

dismissed the appeal by order dated 04.12.2025.

2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 06-01-2026 11:20:51 :::

CR No. 9787 of 2025 :3

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the

present revision petition.

6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner

and have carefully perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order on the

ground that, since the parties to the suit are co-owners in joint possession,

the respondents have no right to raise any construction over a specific

portion of the suit property. He has relied upon the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Bachan Singh versus Swaran Singh

2000 (3) P.L.R. 416

8. I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court. Paragraph 15 of the judgment is relevant, as the principles have been

summarized in paragraph, which is reproduced below:-

“15. Upon a consideration of the judicial pronouncements on the subject,

we are of the opinion that:

(i) a co-owner who is not in possession of any part of the property is

not entitled to seek an injunction against another co-o