JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J. (Oral):- Petitioners, herein, filed civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, herein, seeking to restrain him from demolishing any portion of the suit property and from raising any construction, thereon, illegally, forcibly and without due process of law. 2. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioners averring, therein, that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in their favour and they shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury by refusal of temporary injunction till the disposal of the main suit. 3. This application was opposed by the respondent by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that prima facie case and balance of convenience are not in favour of the petitioners, who shall manifestly not suffer an irreparable loss and injury by refusal of temporary injunction till the disposal of the main suit. Consequently, prayer for dismissal of application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was, thus, made. 4. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure P1) dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the petitioners, herein. Aggrieved, thereagainst, they filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 133 of 2011/2012 before the District Judge, Ambala, that too, was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2013. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners, who are plaintiffs before the trial Court, have filed instant revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for acceptance of their application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard and record perused with his assistance. 6. Indubitably, parties, herein, are co-sharers in the suit property. It is well settled that one co-sharer cannot file such application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against another co-sharer. Only remedy available to the petitioners was to lay a suit for partition of the suit property that has already been pending before the Civil Court. It is well settled that one co-sharer cannot file such application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against another co-sharer. Only remedy available to the petitioners was to lay a suit for partition of the suit property that has already been pending before the Civil Court. If the respondent raised construction on any portion of the suit property and if in partition that portion fell to the share of the petitioners, in that event, obviously, the respondent shall have to remove that construction and deliver possession of that site to the petitioners without claiming any compensation. So, the Courts below rightly concluded that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of temporary injunction as prayed by them in their application under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rights of the parties be determined in the Civil suit for partition. However, civil Court that is hearing the suit of partition shall endeavour its best to dispose of the matter without any further delay. 7. Resultantly, the petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------