MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for partition of joint Khasra Nos. 687, 688 and 689 falling in Khewat No. 170, Khatuni No. 970, Khewat No. 625 Khatuni No. 1058 according to Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 KaIra KaIan. Alongwith the suit the petitioner also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. seeking restraint from raising further construction over the property in dispute. Respondents Nos. 8 to 10 made a statement before the Trial Court that they will raise construction at their own risk and cost, accordingly the learned Trial Court vide order dated 4.10.2004 dismissed the said application. The same was assailed by the petitioner through an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2004.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a co-owner of the property in dispute and without partition its nature should not be changed so as to prejudice the rights of the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that respondents have disputed the title of the petitioner and the respondents being absolute owners are entitled to raise construction of their choice over the property in dispute.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Jamabandi for the year 1998-99 placed on record, prima facie indicates that the petitioners are co-sharers in the disputed khasra numbers. In the circumstances, any change brought in the property in dispute can cause damage to the rights of the petitioner with respect to its partition.
However, if the respondents feel the necessity of raising any construction over the property in dispute in their possession, they may do so at their own risk and cost. However, any construction raised by them after the institution of the suit would not prejudice the rights of the petitioner in any manner at the time of final partition. With this observation, -this petition stands disposed of.