JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The parties to the lis uncontrovertedly stand recorded in the apposite revenue record to be joint owners in possession of the suit land. Uncontrovertedly also the suit land remains un-partitioned. Consequently extantly all the co-sharers in the undivided holdings who are parties to the lis enjoy the entire joint holdings vicariously with each other, also exclusive possession, if any, of any of the co-sharers of any portion of the joint holdings would not vest in him/them any right to, till partition of the joint estate occurs, stake any exclusive title to hold without the consent of the other co-sharers any construction activity thereon. The plaintiffs/respondents herein (for short the “plaintiffs”) instituted a suit against the defendants/petitioners herein (for short the “defendants”) for permanent prohibitory injunction for prohibiting the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land till the joint holdings stand partitioned by metes and bounds. The defendants had by their overt act of threatening to subject a portion of the joint land to construction spurred a cause of action vis-à-vis the plaintiffs also during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs had motioned the learned trial Court for the defendants being ad-interim restrained from subjecting any portion of the joint holdings to any construction. The learned trial Court had allowed the application of the plaintiffs. In an appeal carried from the rendition of learned trial Court before the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur by the aggrieved defendants, the appellate Court had affirmed the rendition of the learned trial Court. 2. Before the learned appellate Court the defendants had contended of a cattle shed already existing on the joint holding wherein their cattle stand housed being in an dilapidated condition and of there being every likelihood of its at any moment collapsing. They had also contended of theirs being permitted to raise a new cattle shed on the joint holdings, raising whereof being impossible unless the retaining wall beneath it is also permitted to be constructed. The learned appellate Court had concluded on a perusal of the photographs of the already existing cattle shed of the defendants on the joint holdings wherein they housed their cattle not facing any imminent danger of its collapsing. The aforesaid material as relied upon by the learned appellate Court in drawing the aforesaid conclusion does prima-facie unravel of its not suffering from any infirmity. The aforesaid material as relied upon by the learned appellate Court in drawing the aforesaid conclusion does prima-facie unravel of its not suffering from any infirmity. Even if the defendants had in their possession material other than photographic evidence, which they took to place before the learned appellate Court, to sustain their claim qua its facing an imminent danger of collapsing whereupon they stood driven to espouse for theirs being permitted to raise it elsewhere, construction whereof being impossible unless the retaining wall occurring beneath it is permitted to be constructed, they stood enjoined to place the said germane material before the learned appellate Court or were enjoined to motion the appellate Court for appointment of a local Commissioner for the latter visiting the relevant site, on his visit whereof, the best credible material to sustain the claim of the defendants would have emerged. However the defendants omitted to do so. Consequently, in the aforesaid omission of the defendants to before the learned first appellate Court produce the best material in pronouncement of their claim therebefore rendered its standing withheld from its sight whereas when only the photographs of the relevant site stood adduced therebefore by the defendants for it to fathom the genuineness of the claim raised therebefore by the defendants, perusal whereof does not nurse any conclusion other than the one formed by the learned appellate Court now estops the defendants to contend of the view formed by the learned Appellate Court on its perusing the photographs as stood adduced thereat by them suffering from any legal frailty. In sequel, this court does not deem it fit and appropriate given the aforesaid omissions on the part of the defendants, omissions whereof estops them to espouse hereat of the reflections occurring in the photographs being discardable also strips of its vigor their claim hereat for the appointment of a Local Commissioner. 3. Further more the defendants had before the learned appellate Court reared a claim of theirs being permitted to construct a new cattle shed other than the one which already exists on the joint holdings. 3. Further more the defendants had before the learned appellate Court reared a claim of theirs being permitted to construct a new cattle shed other than the one which already exists on the joint holdings. Since the cattle shed of the defendants as already exists on the joint holding stands concluded by this Court to not suffer any imminent danger of its collapsing besides when the defendants propose to raise a new cattle shed at a site other than the one where their old cattle shed exists, raising whereof would occur on the joint holdings which remain yet un-partitioned, its raising by the defendants if permitted by this Court would sequel the ill fate of the suit of the plaintiffs against them for theirs being injuncted from subjecting the joint holdings to any construction activity till partition thereof occurs, standing rendered nugatory. I find no merit in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the Civil Suit within three months hereafter.