1. Order dt. 16th of Oct06, passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Srinagar, is the subject matter of challenge in the present civil Revision. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners purchased a piece of land measuring two kanals situated at Pandach Ganderbal, from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for residential purposes. Two sale deeds dated 19th of June99, were executed in this regard, copies whereof have been placed on record as Annexures C and D. The aforementioned respondents had purchased this land from respondent No.1. After the said land was sold by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioners, the respondent No.1 filed a pre-emption suit against the petitioners as also respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the court of Munsiff, Ganderbal. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 pleaded that as he had purchased a total land measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas in the Khewat No. out of which two kanals of land has been sold by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioner, he has a right of prior purchase being a co-sharer. The petitioners resisted the suit as also the motion for temporary relief by filing the written statement. It appears that vide order dt. 29th of March01, the learned Munsiff, Ganderbal, decided some preliminary issue against the petitioners against which a revision came to be filed in this court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 15th of Feb02, passed in Civil Revision 42/2001. At the same time, on the consent of the parties, the suit pending before the court of Munsiff, Ganderbal, was also directed to be transferred to the court of City Munsiff (Judicial Magistrate) Srinagar, for trial, who vide order dt. 6th of Aug05, dismissed the application for ad-interim relief filed by the respondent No.1. 3. Against the aforementioned order dt. 6th of Aug05, whereby the interim application of the respondent No.1 was dismissed, he filed an appeal before the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Srinagar. Vide order dt. 16th of Oct06, passed by the appellate court, the order passed by the trial court came to be set aside with the following observations:- "Thus it is clear that the trial court has passed the impugned order against the tenants of well established principles of law governing the temporary relief applications and has adopted an attitude which is against the judicial temperament. Accordingly the appeal is accepted and order passed by the trial court impugned in this appeal is, hereby, set aside and the defendants are temporarily restrained from alienating the suit property by sale, mortgage and are also directed not to change the nature of the suit property by raising any construction over it till final disposal of the main suit." 4. It is against the above order passed by the appellate court, the present Revision has been filed by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellate court has erred in law by allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1, without taking into consideration that no prima-facie case stood established by the said respondent. It is stated that the appellate court should not have taken upon itself to decide the application for interim injunction, which already stood dismissed by the trial court and at the most should have remanded the matter to the trial court for hearing the parties afresh in the interim application. By this act of passing the order impugned, the appellate court is said to have exceeded its jurisdiction. It is stated that the respondent No.1 had already sold the land in question to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from whom the petitioners had purchased the said land and they being in peaceful possession of the same, the respondent No.1 cannot be treated as a co-sharer and has no right of prior purchase with respect to the property which he has already sold. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellate court after appreciating the fact that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 being a co-sharer in the suit property and having a right of prior purchase, has rightly passed the order impugned setting aside the order passed by the trial court. 7. The sole question which arises for consideration in this Revision petition is whether the respondent No.1 can claim himself to be a co-sharer in the property which comprised in a Khewat, out of which part of the property has already been sold by him and whether on this basis he has a preferential right to purchase under the aforementioned Act. 8. The word `co-sharer is not defined in the Right of Prior Purchase Act or in the General Clauses Act. Even in any English dictionary, no definition has been given of the said word. 8. The word `co-sharer is not defined in the Right of Prior Purchase Act or in the General Clauses Act. Even in any English dictionary, no definition has been given of the said word. However, in my opinion, the meaning of the word "co-sharer" would cover a person who is having a joint share with others in an undivided property. The intention of the legislature while enacting the provisions of Section 14(a) and (b) of the Right of Prior Purchase Act, also appears to be that the same would apply only to the sale of an undivided share in the joint property. In this view of mine, I am fortified by a judgment of the Lahore High Court reported as Sher Singh v. Nand Lal, AIR 1947 Lah 184, wherein it has been observed as under:- "The word `co-sharers signifies persons owning a share or shares in the whole of the property or properties of which another share or other shares were the subject of sale. In other words, the word `co-sharer denotes a person who holds an existing joint proprietary interest whether absolute or limited in an undivided property. Thus where the land sold is the sole property of the vendor in which the pre-emptor has no share whatsoever the mere fact that on partition of the village Shamlat a portion of the common land which will necessarily be allotted on account of this khata will go to the pre-emptor does not make him a `co-sharer in the khata itself." 9. Similar view has been reiterated by a Full Bench of this court reported in AIR 1963 J&K 11, Ghulam Hassan Bhat v. Ali Bhat. 10. In the case in hand, the plea of respondent No.1 is that he possessed a piece of land measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas in Khewat No.34, out of which he had sold only a part of land measuring two kanals to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, and therefore, he being a co-sharer has the right of prior purchase when the property in dispute was sold to the petitioners by the said respondents. The said plea of respondent No.1, in view of the legal position noticed above, cannot be accepted. It is the admitted position that the respondent No.1 had sold the property in question to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said plea of respondent No.1, in view of the legal position noticed above, cannot be accepted. It is the admitted position that the respondent No.1 had sold the property in question to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. On execution of this sale agreement between the said respondents, though it was with respect to a particular part of the property comprising in one khewat in which some other land is owned by him, the respondent No.1 cannot claim himself to be a co-sharer in the property already sold by him and, thus, has no right of prior purchase. The learned appellate court has, therefore, erred in holding that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is a co-sharer being possessed of some land in the same khewat out of which he sold a part of the land to respondent Nos.2 and 3. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this Revision is allowed. Order impugned dated 16th of Oct06, passed by the appellate court is set aside. The trial court shall proceed ahead with the trial and decide the main suit preferably within a period of six months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to it by the petitioners, uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. 12. Disposed of accordingly along with connected CMPs, if any.