Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 14 August 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2015 whereby, the parties have been directed not to raise any new constructions over the suit property unless partition by metes and bounds takes place, has approached this Court challenging the same by invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) PLAINTIFF respondent instituted Original Suit No. 75 of 2015 for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant No. 1, from raising any construction over the joint property of the parties or from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant Nos. 2 to 11. He also filed an application for temporary injunction. It was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 28 February 2015 primarily on the ground that the parties are joint tenure holders and no injunction can be granted against a co -owner. Certain observations were made to the effect that complete description of the suit property has not been given in the plaint and, as such, it is not possible to identify the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff respondent preferred Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2015. It has been allowed by the Appellate Court and the parties have been restrained from raising any new construction over any portion of the suit property without getting a partition done. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no injunction could be granted against a co -owner and as such, the order of the Lower Appellate Court is manifestly illegal. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the following decisions: - - "1) Kochunju Nair Versus Koshy Alexander : : AIR 1999 SC 2272; 2) Virendra Kumar Versus Additional District Judge, Kannauj : : 2014 (122) RD 330; 3) Urmila Devi Versus Pooran Chand Dabar : : 1998 Law Suit (All) 819."
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Om Pal Singh Versus Raj Krishna :, 2010 (110) RD 391, wherein this Court has held that a purchaser, who is an outsider, has only got a right to enforce a partition and he is not entitled to obtain possession of what he has purchased.;