Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS /plaintiffs are in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution aggrieved against the order dated 16.08.2011 (P -1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur as well as order dated 21.01.2014 (P -2) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) FTC, Hoshairpur whereby their application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs as well as from using the tubewell in the land till the same is partitioned was dismissed. Plaintiffs in this suit alleged that they are the co -owners in possession of the entire property as mentioned in the headnote of the plaint and on the said suit property there was a tubewell which was in the name of their mother Amar Kaur exclusively. It was stated that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had inherited the property from sister of Amar Kaur i.e. Swaran Kaur their mother and subsequently they had sold the property to defendant No. 1. It was further stated that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were never in possession of any part of the suit land, therefore, defendant No. 1 was also not in possession of any part of the suit land. Thus prayer was made that defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and also from using the tubewell.
(2.) UPON notice, material averments were denied and it was stated that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were in possession of specific khasra numbers and possession of the same was given to defendant -No. 1 vide sale deeds which were executed in favour to the extent of 26 Kanal 2 marlas. \i was further submitted that tubewell is being used by all the co -sharers for irrigation of the entire joint land and if defendants are restrained from using the tubewell their portion of the land cannot be irrigated, which would result in immense loss. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, both the Courts below dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC preferred by the petitioners.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire suit land and since the tubewell is in the exclusive name of their mother (Amar Kaur), the learned Courts below have erred in law by not allowing the application for interim injunction and thus prayer was made for allowing the revision petition.;