JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated 18.2.1999 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 97/98 by which he dismissed the appeal against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 7.10.1998. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent at length. 3. Sunil Kumar, who is a son of Smt. Harpyari Devi and brother of Suresh Kumar, filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (JD) Jodhpur alleging that there existed an ancestral property (a house) in Jodhpur city. Site plan was submitted with the plaint and it was averred that the rooms No. 1, 2 & 3 were in exclusive possession of the plaintiff and that since the property was joint, he was owner of every inch of the property. There was a criminal litigation in which the respondent's help was required as he is a practicing lawyer but he could not render the same. However, the relations became strain. He had to file a suit for injunction that he may not be dispossessed from the rooms which were in his possession. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. 4. The case of the defendants was that both the parties live in the same house and that only one room was in possession of the respondent. Trial Court passed an order of injunction on 6.10.1998. 5. Then an application was submitted under section 151 CPC before the trial Judge that the defendants petitioners had put locks on gate `J' of room No. I in the site plan and at place 'A' near room No. 2 the gate which leads to the upper storey. The trial Court allowed the application and ordered as follows " vr% izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj dj vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) vkns'k tkjh fd;k tkrk gS vizkFkhZx.k ekdZ " , " o " ts " ij fLFkr njoktksa ij yxh dq.Mh gVk nsosa o blesa fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk mRiUu ugha djsaA " 6. The reasoning given by the learned trial Judge was that the property was not divided between the parties and was joint property over which Sunil Kumar had right on every inch. The reasoning given by the learned trial Judge was that the property was not divided between the parties and was joint property over which Sunil Kumar had right on every inch. An appeal was filed before the appellate Judge in which it was held that the appeal was not maintainable as an order under section 151 CPC was amenable only to the revisional jurisdiction. This has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, I have heard both the parties against the order of learned trial Judge in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such an order, as passed by the learned trial Judge, could not have been passed under section 151 CPC. He cited Peer Gulam Naseer v. Peer Gulam Jelanee, 1988(2) RLR page 871 , which was a case u/O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 CPC and not under section 151 CPC. He also cited China Ram v. Subhash Sharma, 1998 DNJ (Raj.) page 653 , which was again a case u/o. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 CPC and not a case under section 151 CPC. Therefore, these citations will not be applicable to this case. An order under section 151 CPC can be passed looking to the peculiar circumstances of a particular case in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners agreed that he has no objection if gate `J' of room No. 1 is opened but he has objection to the opening of gate W. He has submitted that in case gate `A' is opened, there may be complications because plaintiff will use it and may go upstairs and there may be again litigation. 8. On the other hand, Shri Sunil Kumar Gehlot, who is also a practicing lawyer, submitted that when the property is undivided and joint, he has right to use every inch of the joint property. He submitted that he was feeling inconvenient because of closure of these gates in order to get light and air and proper use of the rooms which were in his possession. 9. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. It was in the interest of justice that the learned trial Judge passed the order of opening these two gates as the property belongs to both the parties and the petitioners alone do not have exclusive right to use the property. 9. I have considered the arguments of both the parties. It was in the interest of justice that the learned trial Judge passed the order of opening these two gates as the property belongs to both the parties and the petitioners alone do not have exclusive right to use the property. Of course the admitted position is that Sunil Kumar has possession over these two rooms. He is entitled to have proper air and light as well as right to access to the rooms concerned. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that in case gate `A' is opened, Sunil Kumar may create problem while using the gate and it will be a further cause of discord between the parties as he would like to go to the verandah and then use the staircase leading to roof of room No. 2. In the facts and circumstances when a division has not taken place between the parties, Sunil Kumar has a right to use gate `A' and I am of the view that the learned trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction in allowing the application to open these two gates. It was in the interest of justice and Sunil Kumar could not be restrained from using these gates. However, it is hoped that Sunil Kumar, who is a member of noble profession, will not create any problem while using gate `A' which is situated near room No. 2 in the site plan.Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Revision rejected. *******