GURDIAL SINGH Vs. HARMALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the orders of the Courts below declining the application moved by the petitioners for grant of an ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioners have been treating the land in their possession as exclusive owners. They have not only sold the part of the property during the partition proceedings, but also mortgaged some part thereof with the Banks. Now the petitioners by moving the stay application have sought for an injunction against the co-owners restraining them from raising construction in the suit land.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev Dass, 2004 4 RCR(Civ) 760to contend that an application for grant of interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or changing the nature of the suit property must be granted unless an irreparable loss is shown by the defendant to be caused in case the injunction is not granted.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that injunction granted in favour of the petitioners would cause irreparable loss to the respondents inasmuch as the petitioners have already disposed of some part of the property by selling specific khasra numbers which were in their possession as co-owners. They have also mortgaged a part of the suit property with some Banks. Now interference in the possession of the suit property would cause damage to their interest. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment of this Court DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. v. Jai Singh, 2006 2 RCR(Civ) 118, wherein it has been held that no injunction can be granted against a co-sharer in exclusive possession of his share especially when the plaintiff himself has been in exclusive possession or has been utilizing his share. The facts of this case totally apply to the present case.