C.R.No. 1744 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No. 1744 of 2009
Date of Decision : 20.7.2009
Narinder Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
Pawan Kumar and Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.Singla, Advocate,
for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed
by the Courts below, whereby defendant/petitioner has been restrained
from dismantling the suit property and also from raising any construction
on the joint property till the disposal of the suit.
As per the plaintiff, the property is joint, but the defendant has
started dismantling the old construction in order to raise new construction
so as to change the nature and shape of the property, which is still joint
between the parties. Learned trial Court passed a restraint order keeping
in view the photographs of the suit property, which show dismantling of
old construction and new construction being raised by the defendant.
It has been further found that large scale construction and
dismantling has been made on the spot, as per the photographs placed on
record and when admittedly the property is joint, therefore, the
construction in the manner sought to be raised by the defendant cannot be
C.R.No. 1744 of 2009 2
permitted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that
the petitioner would like to complete the stair case and the roof, which
has been laid and that the petitioner shall not claim any interest in the
property on the basis of such construction raised.
The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
not tenable. As per the findings recorded by the Courts below, the
petitioner has dismantled large scale portion of the joint property, so as to
raise construction. Since, the parties are co-sharers and the property
being a residential property, any change in the construction of the
property, where large number of co-sharers are residing, will prejudice
the rights of other co-sharers.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below, do not
suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which may warrant interference
by this Court in the present revision petition.
Dismissed.
20.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE