- (1.) The facts leadings to this revision petition as stated at the Bar, are that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had filed an application before the Assistant Collector II Grade for partition of the joint land measuring 45 Kanals 15 Marlas. On 9th June, 1983 order for partition was made and on 9th August, 1983 possession was delivered to the co-sharers of their respective portions. Mutation in respect of that partition was sanctioned on 13th March, 1984. On 9th April, 1984 plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 purchased some land from plaintiff No. 1 Krishan Kumar, who was one of the co-sharers in the joint land. The plaintiffs filed this suit on 27th April, 1983 for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from making any addition or alteration by raising any sort of construction on the joint land measuring 45 Kanals 15 Marlas. In this suit they had challenged the partition proceedings on the ground of fraud etc., and have averred that the order of partition was bad in the eye of law. 2 The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for grant of ad interim injunction for the same relief as was prayed for in the suit. The learned trial Court ordered status quo till further orders and issued notice to the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed an application for vacation of the ad interim injunction. After hearing the contesting parties the learned trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiffs and vacated the ad interim injunction earlier granted. Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. After considering all the arguments raised before him by the learned counsel for the parties, he dismissed the appeal vide detailed order dated 12th March, 1985. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this revision petition in this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced lengthy arguments to show that in the partition proceedings service of Krishan Kumar plaintiff and some other co-sharers had not been effected and the partition was ordered on the concession made by Shri Rajinder Singh, Advocate, whose presence was recorded on behalf of Krishan Kumar and some other co-sharers. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Krishan Kumar or any body else on his behalf had not appointed Shri Rajinder Singh, Advocate, to represent him in those proceedings. As against this the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court in view of clause (xviii) of Section 158(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. He further argued that the contesting defendants have taken possession of the land allotted to them in partition proceedings and have already commenced construction thereon. A plan was also filed showing the extent of the construction. 4. At this stage I do not want to go into the merits of the case as it will prejudice one party or the other at the time of the trial. Even if for arguments sake it is held that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is not in their favour. The contesting defendants have taken possession of the land allotted to them and they have already made some constructions. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that if they are restrained from making further constructions they would be debarred from making use of the land and the building material which is lying on the site will be wasted while the plaintiffs who are out of possession, are not going to suffer any injury. This argument has force. The final disposal of the suit (including appeals) may take many years and it will not be in the interest of justice that the party in possession should be deprived from making use of the property in his possession. To safeguard the interest of the plaintiffs, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has stated at the bar that they (i.e. contesting respondents) would make the construction at their own risk and in case earlier order of partition is set aside and re-partition is ordered, they would remove the construction at their own expenses and that they would not claim any right in the land in their possession on the basis of the construction made thereon. 5. This revision is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The lower Appellate Court had considered in detail all the arguments advanced before it on behalf of the parties. This petition cannot be accepted merely on the ground that after consideration of the arguments advanced before me I may form a different opinion. The revisional power of the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code have limitations. In this respect reference can be made to The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Parshad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad, 1973 AIR(SC) 76, wherein their Lordships remarked :- "In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code." 6. For the foregoing reasons and keeping in view the undertaking given on behalf of the contesting respondents, I do not find any force in the present petition and dismissed the same.;