ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this civil revision, the petitioners challenge two orders dated 16.07.2012 and 10.09.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Chakwal, Camp at Choa Saidan Shah whereby an C.LR. application for grant of temporary injunction was initially dismissed but was modified by the Appellate Court.
2. The brief facts giving 'rise to filing of this civil revision are that the suit property mentioned in the head note of the plaint is jointly owned by the parties and has not yet been partitioned, therefore, the respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner occupying under the respondents by way of construction or otherwise.
3. . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are enjoying possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 566 and respondents have no authority to interfere with their possession; that the Courts below have failed to ascertain the possession of the petitioner of the land; that no local commission was sent to ascertain the possession at the spot; that the petitioner is-in possession of the suit land since their forefathers; that the suit property is covered by a boundary wall; that the respondents have purchased land from Khewat No. 36 in the year 2008 from the vendor who never remained in the possession of the suit land situated in Khasra No. 566 and Khata No. 47; that the petitioner has already got prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in their favour and irreparable loss was the natural outcome for refusal of the stay order. Places reliance on 1989 SCM R 130 and 2003 CLC 1695 in support of his contentions.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the main suit has already been dismissed on 5.10.2012 and its restoration application was filed after two months but uptill now the same has not been restored and as such the suit is pending at the moment; that the petitioners have the possession of. Khasra No. 566 on which they have constructed a house and the instant suit was filed at the stage when the lentil was to be laid on the structure. He places on record the latest Khasra Girdawari in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 in respect of Khasra No. 566 in respect of Khasra No. 566. For Kharif 2011 and 2012 measuring 6 kanals, 23 marlas Khewat No. 47. Also places on record a copy of the order dated 05.11.2012 whereby an application for interim injunction filed by Chaudhry Khalid and Abid Hussain against the respondents was dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The learned Appellate Court has already modified the order of the Trial Court to the extent that no further alienation shall take place in respect of the disputed property. Copy of Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 2011-12 reveals the names of the respondents to be is possession of Khasra No. 566 Khewat No. 47 measuring 6 kanals, 2 marlas. No doubt that one co-sharer cannot change the nature of joint property in his possession till the partition is effected in accordance with law. It is also true that a strong co-sharer may take advantage of his possession and throw a poor person into a ditche but in the instant case the Court has to look a prima facie case. The possession of the respondents is not only admitted by the petitioners but has also been established on the basis of Khasra Girdawari which give them right to enjoy their possession. However, the partition of the shares of the petitioner will finally and ultimately determine the entitlement of the respondents if it is subsequent found that they were in possession of excess land they will be bound to compensate the petitioners. Further alienation of the suit property therefore is not being permitted.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this civil revision is dismissed with no order as to the costs.
Civil revision .