130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 24.02.2026 CHARAN SINGH ....Petitioner Versus MAHABIR SINGH ETC. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen S. Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for respondents No.10, 23 and 24.

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondent(s).

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Present revision petition is directed against orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff filed suit seeking partition with the consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Along with the suit, an application was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction against defendants No.1 to 25 in form of restrain order to injunct them from raising construction during the pendency of the suit.

3. Defendants No.1 to 9, 11 to 18, 22, 26 and 27 contested the suit. In reply to the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, it was claimed that the estate already stands partitioned in the year 1999. All co-sharers including the plaintiff are in possession of their respective shares. Plaintiff has already raised construction over his share in the suit property and thus he has no locus to seek injunction against the defendants.

4. Defendants No.10, 23 to 25 suffered statement pleading no objection to grant of status quo.

5. Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC holding that as per the pleaded case of the plaintiff, the parties are co-sharers. The jointness of the property being admitted, the plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case and the same is covered against him in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Bachan Singh vs. Swaran Singh, 2000 (3) RCR Civil 70

6. The aforesaid findings and the order passed by the Court of the First Instance stand affirmed by the Appellate Court.

7. Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has assailed the orders passed by the Courts below. He submits that even though the partition proceedings are pending before the Revenue Court as well as in the present suit, yet in order to derive unlawful benefits, the defendants are trying to construct the frontal portion of land which is of more value and the same would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. He further submits that defendants have leased out portion of their land in favour of defendants No.26 and 27. Under the garb of lease deed, the lessees are being allowed to raise construction. He submits that the Courts below have wrongly relied upon dictum of law laid down in Bachan Singh’s case (supra) and have ignored the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488

8. Mr. Aggarwal further submits that the principle of law that injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer, is not absolute. If the acts of a co-sharer are prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of other co-sharer and the same has an effect of diminishing the value and utility of the property, the other co-sharer is entitled for injunction. Reliance is being placed upon ratio of law laid down in Mohan Lal vs. Preet Kumar 2008(3) LandLR 41. He further submits that balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff. Granting liberty to raise construction to one of co- sharers, shall create multiple litigation. He places reliance upon ratio of law laid down in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Sukhwinder Singh and others, 2019(1) PLR 134. Further reliance is being placed upon Jaspal Kaur and another vs. Harbans Singh and others, 2020 AIR CC 2933, Balbir Singh vs. Lamber Singh, 2004(2) RCR(Civil) 843 and Ved Paul vs. Prakash Chand and others – RSA-294-2007 decided on 28.09.2016.

9. Per contra, Mr. Jain submits that earlier the part of the suit property in po