IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (119 Date of Decision:-05.12.2025 Surjeet Kaur and others … Petitioners Versus Santosh Devi ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Lovedeep Sandhu, Advocate and Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the caveator/respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed to challenge a series of orders passed by the learned Courts below. The first is the order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) issued by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, through which the respondent-plaintiff’s application seeking interim injunction was allowed. The second is the order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-8) delivered by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the injunction order was affirmed. The third is the order dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, rejecting the petitioner’s request for vacation, alteration, or modification of the injunction. These successive orders, taken together, constitute the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent–plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction asserting that the suit property is a joint holding of the parties along with other co-sharers. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 22//7 measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas, whereas the appellants–defendants are in possession of Khasra No. 22//16/2/2. The grievance of the plaintiff is that, taking undue advantage of his absence, the defendants commenced raising construction over the portion of land falling within the plaintiff’s exclusive possession. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from carrying out any construction activity on the suit land belonging to the plaintiff.

3. The appellants/defendants entered appearance and contested both the suit and the accompanying application for interim injunction. They asserted that, being co-owners, each co-sharer is legally deemed to be in possession of every inch of the joint property and, therefore, every co-owner is entitled to raise construction thereon. They further pleaded that they are, in fact, in exclusive possession of the portion of land in question, and that such possession stands admitted by the plaintiff. It was also contended that the construction undertaken by the defendants had already progressed up to the level of the lintel, and substantial expenditure had been incurred in the process. The appellants further submitted that Amarjit Kaur and others had earlier instituted a similar suit against them, and upon failing to obtain any relief therein, the present suit was allegedly filed in collusion with those parties. On these grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the injunction application.

3.1. Upon hearing both sides, the learned Civil Judge allowed the application for interim injunction, restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit property and from altering the nature of the property by raising further construction.

4. The appellants–defendants preferred an appeal against the injunction order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order dated 03.09.2025. Thereafter, the appellants– defendants filed a separate application seeking modification or vacation of the injunction; however, the learned Civil Judge declined the said request through the impugned order dated 01.11.2025. Aggrieved by these concurrent orders, the appellants–defendants have approached this Court by way of the present revision petition, contending that both the learned Courts below committed material illegality and jurisdictional error in pl