JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. During the pendency of the plaintiff's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from begetting any change in the nature of the suit khasra numbers delineated in the plaint, she instituted an application cast under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, seeking therein reliefs qua till the disposal of the apposite suit, the defendants being restrained from changing the nature and possession of the suit khasra numbers. Upon the aforesaid application, the trial Judge recorded an order, whereby, the parties to the lis were directed, to, till the apposite suit receives adjudication hence maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit khasra numbers. 2. The defendants being aggrieved therefrom instituted an appeal before the learned learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, the latter proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the defendants, in sequel, whereto, the defendants/petitioners are aggrieved, hence, concert to beget reversal thereof, by instituting the instant petition before this Court. 3. Uncontrovertedly, the suit property is entered in the relevant records as “abadideh”. The parlance borne by coinage “abadideh”, is, of its being the occupied site of village, whereon exist the houses of villagers, who, in the mohal concerned, whereat lands evidently reflected in the revenue records as “abadideh”, hence, hold shares therein in proportion to their recorded land holdings in the apposite mohal, also hold concomitant compatible rights to raise their respective abodes thereon. With this Court ascribing the aforesaid connotation, to the coinage “abadideh” besides its also proceeding to make conclusions in respect of apposite entitlements of the recorded co-khatedars in the mohal concerned, whereat, abadideh lands are located, to hence raise their abodes thereon, it is of crucial importance, to, dwell upon the factum of each of the parties to the lis in consonance therewith also holding a right of user of suit khasra numbers, numbers whereof stand uncontrovertedly borne in the revenue records as “abadideh”, rights whereof would ensue vis-a-vis each of the contesting parties, only, on surfacing of prima facie evidence in respect of each of the litigants, possessing, shares therein on account of theirs holding lands in the mohal whereat the suit khasra numbers occur. 4. Initially bearing in the mind the aforesaid inferences, therefrom the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the instant suit is also to be gauged. 4. Initially bearing in the mind the aforesaid inferences, therefrom the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the instant suit is also to be gauged. The plaintiff prima facie holds no locus standi to institute the instant suit against the defendants nor hence she holds any leverage to validate the verdicts pronounced by both the learned Courts, below, significantly, in face of reflections occurring in the relinquishment deed of 19.01.1993, hence making a display of the plaintiff thereunder relinquishing her share in respect of abadideh lands vis-a-vis her brothers. However, even if, the plaintiff hence under the aforesaid relinquishment deed has thereunder relinquished her share in the abadideh lands existing in the mohal concerned, whereat the suit khasra numbers are located, thereupon, she is prima facie per se, not, entitled to rear the instant suit against the defendants nor she is entitled to institute, during its pendency an application, for claiming therein relief of ad interim injunction being pronounced vis-a-vis the defendants, nonetheless, given the defendants in their written statement acquiescing to the factum of hers holding a residential house comprised in an area of four biswas upon abadideh lands, lands whereof are located in the mohal concerned. In aftermath, the effect borne by the aforesaid acquiescence is thereupon an inference being erected, of hence, the plaintiff being a co-sharer in the abadideh lands located in the mohal concerned, whereat, the suit khasra numbers are located, corollary whereof, is of hers holding the apposite entitlement to institute the extant suit against the defendants. 5. However, yet the learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners herein contends that in the absence of impleadment in the extant suit, of, other co-owners vis-a-vis the relevant abadideh lands, thereupon, the plaintiff's suit being not maintainable. However, the aforesaid submission gets scuttled by a judgment recorded by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in Ajmer Singh (deceased by L.R's) versus Shamsher Singh & others, AIR 1984 P&H, 58, relevant paragraph 9 whereof is extracted hereinafter:- “9. However, the aforesaid submission gets scuttled by a judgment recorded by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in Ajmer Singh (deceased by L.R's) versus Shamsher Singh & others, AIR 1984 P&H, 58, relevant paragraph 9 whereof is extracted hereinafter:- “9. To conclude, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that a co-sharer can institute and maintain a suit for possession against a trespasser in respect of the entire property without impleading the other co-sharers and secure a decree for the same irrespective of his own share therein.” ….(p.61) wherein, a right is preserved in a co-owner, dehors his/her omitting to associate in the memo of parties or his/her omitting to implead along with him/her other co-owners, to, yet proceed to maintain a suit for possession vis-a-vis trespassers. Even, though, the aforesaid extracted relevant portion of the judgment recorded by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ajmer Singh's case (supra), is a verdict pronounced with respect to the entitlement of a co-sharer, to, maintain a suit for possession, dehors hers/his not associating along with her/him in the array of co-plaintiffs other recorded co-owners concerned, especially when the relevant relief is constituted against trespassers upon the suit property concerned. Also when in distinction thereto, the instant suit is a simplicitor suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, without, any relief being ventilated therein in respect of vacant possession of the suit property, nonetheless, the ratio decidendi borne in the afore extracted relevant portion of the judgment recorded by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ajmer Singh's case (supra), is, of the plaintiff's suit, even, with a ventilation therein of a simplicitor relief for permanent prohibitory injunction being, yet, maintainable against a trespasser, despite, the sole plaintiff, not, associating along with him/her in the array of co-plaintiffs, other recorded co-owners in the suit lands concerned. 6. 6. Nowat, the effect of admissions of the defendants/petitioner of the plaintiff, holding, a residential house, comprised in an area of 4 biswas upon abadideh lands located in the mohal concerned, when is construed in entwinement with hers under an relinquishment deed of 19.01.1993 also relinquishing her share in abadideh lands vis-a-vis her brothers, thereupon, prima facie, the plaintiff when may have by raising construction to the extent of 4 biswas upon abadideh land, may also hence in proportion to her legitimate share therein, hence, taken to occupy abadideh land, in sequel whereto, she may not hold any locus standi, to, institute the instant suit or thereupon the association by her in the array of co-plaintiffs of other recorded co-owners being a dire necessity. However, the defendants were enjoined to adduce prima facie material qua, on, hers relinquishing her purported entire share in the abadideh land in favour of her brothers, besides given hers taking to occupy only 4 biswas of abadideh land, thereupon, hers holding, no, entitlement to stake any claim for any share in the abadideh lands nor obviously her rights as a co-owner in the abadideh lands remaining intact, whereupon, alone she would be concluded to have no locus standi to institute the suit, rather association by her of other recorded co-owners in the array of co-plaintiffs, being an absolute necessity. Whereas, at this stage, with the defendants failing to place on record, any, clear or categorical material with displays therein, of, the plaintiff despite making relinquishment of her share in abadideh lands or despite hers occupying only 4 biswas thereof, hers not being entitled to stake a claim qua any portion of abadideh lands. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff, claiming relief of injunction against the defendants, the purported trespassers upon the suit property is maintainable, dehors hers not associating in the array of co-plaintiffs other recorded co-owners in the abadideh lands. 7. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff, claiming relief of injunction against the defendants, the purported trespassers upon the suit property is maintainable, dehors hers not associating in the array of co-plaintiffs other recorded co-owners in the abadideh lands. 7. Be that as it may, it is to be now analysed besides guaged from the relevant material existing on record, qua whether any echoing occurs therein in respect of the defendants/appellants being not entitled to any share in the abadideh lands, given theirs evidently not holding as owners any tracts of land in the mohal concerned, whereat the suit khasra numbers exist, besides depictions ought to emanate from the relevant records, with graphic enunciations therein in respect of the defendants/petitioners herein being trespassers upon the suit khasra numbers. Though, the aforesaid echoings stand tacitly borne in the pleadings of defendants No. 4 to 15 wherein they articulate qua theirs through their ancestors hence acquiring title to the abadideh land, who stood recorded in the apposite revenue record to hold possession of suit khasra numbers, wherein dilapidated structures exist, hence, theirs holding a derived legitimate rights therefrom, for, subjecting the suit khasra numbers to construction. The innate nuance of the pleadings reared by the defendants/petitioners No.4 to 15, is qua their apposite striving to establish the trite factum of their endeavour to complete construction upon the suit khasra numbers, being grooved upon the relevant tracts of land whereon it is strived to be completed, falling to their shares therein. However, for theirs prima facie succeeding in their endeavours, they were enjoined to place on record the relevant “naksha bartandaran” holdings reflections therein, of, defendants/petitioners No.4 to 15 holding in entirety in respect of the entire tracts of suit khasra numbers, an indefeasible entitlement thereof. However, the defendants/petitioners, for, prima facie establishing their entitlement to raise or complete construction upon the entire tracts of land, borne in the suit khasra numbers, given the relevant lands in their entirety falling within the share of defendants No.4 to 15, did not adduce, “naksha bartandaran”. However, the defendants/petitioners, for, prima facie establishing their entitlement to raise or complete construction upon the entire tracts of land, borne in the suit khasra numbers, given the relevant lands in their entirety falling within the share of defendants No.4 to 15, did not adduce, “naksha bartandaran”. Non existence besides non adduction of the aforesaid best documentary evidence, for hence leveraging strength to their espousal, contrarily, begets an inference qua theirs neither establishing the factum of their endeavour to commence or complete construction thereon, emanating, from theirs being recorded co-owners in the abadideh lands, befitting sequel wherefrom, is, that the bald pleadings of defendants No.4 to 15 cannot, prima facie at this stage nail any conclusion that the construction, if any, endeavoured to be completed upon suit khasra number(s) being not in excess of their share therein or the construction, if any, if permitted to be completed thereon, its adversely prejudicing the rights of other co-owners in the abadideh land inclusive of the plaintiff. 8. Both, written statements to the plaint as well as the reply(ies) to the apposite application, stood furnished by co-defendant No.8, on behalf of all co-defendants, inclusive of defendants No.1 to 3. The effect of all the co-defendants jointly instituting written statements to the plaint besides jointly instituting reply(ies) to the apposite application, begets an inference of construction activities, if any, carried upon the suit khasra numbers, being strived to be completed, for, the benefit of all co-defendants, inclusive of defendants No.1, 2 and 3, the latter defendants whereof bear the nomenclature of “The Dev Mahapna, Co-operative Housing Building Society, Dhiarighat, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P.. The further concomitant effect, thereof, is that dehors assumingly defendants No.4 to 15, holding shares in abadideh lands also assumingly theirs holding rights to subject the suit khasra numbers to construction, is of, the members of the aforesaid co-operative society being prima facie evidently alike the aforesaid defendants construable to be also holding a share in the abadideh lands, whereupon, the benefits, if any, of the completed construction upon the suit khasra numbers, may untenably accrue vis-a-vis all the members of the afore-referred co-operative society, bestowals whereof may for reasons alluded to hereainafter also infract the mandate of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereafter referred to as the Cooperative Societies Act) also may transgress the provisions engrafted in Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reorms Act, infractions whereof are to be obviated. 9. For determining whether all the members of the aforesaid co-operative society, hold, purportedly alike defendants No.4 to 15, shares in the abadideh land, an allusion to the enlisted members thereof borne in the annexure appended to the certificate issued, in, respect of the registration of the Society concerned, by the competent authority concerned, is extremely important. An allusion thereto, copy whereof stands placed on record, is reflective of some of the enlisted members of the “society”, not, standing arrayed as co-defendants in the array of defendants. Consequence of apposite non arrayings of all the enlisted members of the co-operative society concerned, is, of the defendants/petitioners herein camouflaging the relevant status(es) of all the enlisted members of the cooperative society concerned, pertinently in respect of the suit land. It appears that the aforesaid camouflaging sprouts from all the enlisted members of the co-operative society concerned, not, along with defendants No.4 to 15 purportedly holding any share in the suit khasra numbers, thereupon, if qua co-defendants No.1 to 3, the benefits of the relevant completed construction, are permitted to ensue, thereupon, despite theirs not holding any entitlement, to, any shares in the abadideh land, they would stand benefited therefrom. The aforesaid bestowal of benefits upon certain members of the co-operative society, not holding any share in the abadideh lands would detract from the subtle nuance borne by the connotation “abadideh lands”, lands whereof are meant only for user by evidently proven co-owners therein or are meant for user by natural inhabitants of the mohal concerned or by natural beings, than by, artificial beings or corporate entities, whereas contrarily, with co-defendants No.1 to 3 being artificial beings besides not finding their apposite reflections in the relevant records, thereupon, it appears that there is a possibility of certain, enlisted members of the society concerned, hence through a clever stratagem of creating a cooperative Society striving, for bestowal of impermissible benefits vis-a-vis them, despite, theirs not being agriculturists within Himachal Pradesh, whereupon, they stand debarred by the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Land Tenancy and Reforms Act, provisions, whereof stand extracted hereinafter, to derive any pecuniary leverage from construction raised vis-a-vis lands borne upon the suit khasra number, also stand debarred to claim any right, title or interest upon “abadideh lands”. "118. (1) Notwithstanding 'anything to the contrary contained in any law, contract, agreement, custom or usage for the time being in force, but save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no transfer of land (including sales in execution of a decree of a civil court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue), by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease, mortgage 'with possession or creation of a tenancy shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to prohibit the transfer of land by any person in favour of- (a) a landless labourer; or (b) a landless person belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe; or (c) a village artisan; or (d) a landless person carrying on an allied pursuit; or (e) the State Government; or (f) a co-operative society or a bank; or (g) a person who has' become non-agriculturist on account of the acquisition of his land for any public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; or (h) a non-agriculturist who purchases or intends to purchase land for the construction of a house or shop, or purchases a built up house or shop, from the Himachal Pradesh State Housing Board, established under live Himachal Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1972, or from the Development Authority constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, or from any other statutory corporation set-up under any State or Central/enactment; or (i) a non-agriculturist with the permission of State Government for the purpose that may be prescribed: 9. Having, for the aforesaid reasons, hence concluded that proactive camouflagings by the defendants/petitioners herein vis-a-vis the apposite status(es), as, agriculturists of all the enlisted members of the cooperative society concerned, begetting an inference, of, in infraction of the mandate of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Lands Reforms Act, illegitimate benefits, hence standing bestowed upon them vis-a-vis abadideh land, thereafter, it is imperative to allude to the relevant provisions engrafted in Section 17 of the Societies Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “17. Persons who may become members:- No person shall be admitted to membership of cooperative society except the following, namely:- (a) an individual competent to contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872); (b) any other registered society (except a society under liquidation proceedings); (c) State Government; and (d) such class or classes of persons or associations or persons as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf.” Amongst the afore-extracted relevant provisions, the provisions occurring in clause (a) thereof is significant, wherein a mandate is cast in respect of persons, not, competent to contract, being thereupon disentitled to obtain enlistment as member(s) of the co-operative society concerned, mandate whereof also, does, attract hereat the afore-extracted mandate borne in Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, wherein non agriculturists are barred to execute or enter into any contract in respect of sale gift, exchange, lease, mortgage 'with possession or creation of tenancy in respect of lands occurring within Himachal Pradesh. Since, the defendants/petitioners herein omitted, to, by adducing cogent evidence hence display that all the enlisted members of the co-operative societies concerned hold within the State of H.P., the status(es) of agriculturists, also when it has not been proven that all the enlisted members hold shares in the abadideh lands, thereupon, all the enlisted members of the society concerned, not, holding the aforestated status/capacity(ies) in the suit land, were hence rendered incapacitated to erect any construction vis-a-vis the suit land, also, where hence concomitantly disentitled to obtain enlistment, as members thereof nor any tenable benefits in respect thereof, were bestowable upon them, significantly when they reiteratedly , prima facie, for lack of cogent evidence in respects aforesaid, were not competent to execute any deeds qua tracts of relevant lands evidently occurring within Himachal Pradesh nor were entitled to derive any benefits therefrom. Contrarily, it appears that in the garb of constitution or registration of defendants No.1 to 3, as a, cooperative society, all the enlisted members thereof, are, prima facie concerting to circumvent the provisions of both Section 11 of the Cooperative Societies Act, as also, the provisions of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, whereas, the aforesaid endeavours are enjoined to be thwarted besides scuttled. In aftermath, it is to be concluded that all the co-defendants are trespassers upon the suit land and prima facie they are not entitled to raise any construction upon the abadideh lands, rather thereupon they have no prima facie case in their favour nor the balance of convenience is loaded in their favour nor they would be entailed with any irreparable loss, arising from theirs expending exorbitant sums of money for raising construction upon the suit khasra number, predominantly when prima facie they are trespassers upon the suit khasra numbers. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners, on, anvil of judgments recorded by this Court respectively in CMPMO No. 283 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram versus Ram Lal, decided on 3.6.2011 and in CMPMO 35 of 2011, titled as Sardar Singh versus Smt. Salam Pati & others, decided on 6.4.2011, the relevant paragraph where of are extracted hereinafter: Relevant paragraphs No. 5 & 6 of the judgement reported by this Court in CMPMO No.283 of 2010 read as under: “5. From the material on record, it is also apparent that the construction had reached upto the lintel level at the stage when the suit was filed. The plaintiff did not come to the Court immediately when the construction was started and the defendant has already spent a huge amount of money. In case he is not permitted to complete the construction irreparable harm and injury shall be caused to him which cannot be compensated in terms of costs. 6. On the other hand in case the defendant is allowed to complete the construction, the rights of the plaintiff can be protected by ordering that in case any land on which construction is raised by the defendant falls to the share of plaintiff, the defendant shall not claim any equity or compensation during partition on the basis of such construction. He shall raise the construction at his own risk and cost. In case during partition proceedings the said area falls to the share of the plaintiff then the defendant shall not object to the same and shall handover the constructed portion without claim any compensation from the plaintiff” Relevant paragraph No. 6 of the judgement reported by this Court in CMPMO No.35 of 2011 reads as under “6. In case during partition proceedings the said area falls to the share of the plaintiff then the defendant shall not object to the same and shall handover the constructed portion without claim any compensation from the plaintiff” Relevant paragraph No. 6 of the judgement reported by this Court in CMPMO No.35 of 2011 reads as under “6. From the material on record, it is also apparent that the construction had already reached the lentil level and at this stage to restrain the defendants from completing the construction would cause irreparable harm and damage to them which cannot be compensated in terms of costs in case the suit is finally dismissed. On the other hand in case the defendants are allowed to construct and suit is decreed and it is held that the land and old house was joint of the petitioner would be entitled to claim a share in the newly constructed house which would not cause any loss to them. It is clarified that any construction raised shall be subject to the result of the suit and the defendants shall not claim any right or equity on the basis that they have spent time and money on the construction of the house.” has contended that the defendants being co-sharers upon the suit land, they be permitted to complete their construction upon the suit khasra number, especially when huge sum of money stand expended thereon, besides, if construction is not permitted to be completed, irreparable loss, him and injury unrecompensable in terms of money being hence visited upon the defendants/petitioners herein, rather also with the aggrieved co-owner belatedly seeking relief of ad interim injunction, hers being hence disentitled for the apposite relief. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants proceeds to contend that with the plaintiff in paragraph No.11 of the plaint, pleading that construction activity upon the suit land, commencing 8-9 months prior to the institution of the plaint also when the Local Commissioner in his report makes disclosure therein, of, large part of construction activity being completed upon suit khasra numbers also with concomitant exorbitant sums of money being expended thereon besides with the plaintiff belatedly rearing a suit with reliefs of injunction therein, she is not entitled to reliefs of ad interim injunction being granted vis-a-vis her, reliefs whereof if granted would nullify the triplicate tests of (a) prima facie case existing in her favour; (b) balance of convenience being loaded vis-a-vis the plaintiff and (c) irreparable loss not re-compensable in terms of money, being visited upon the plaintiff. However, all the aforesaid submissions, for all the reasons aforestated, impinge upon the disentitlment or entitlement of the defendants/petitioners herein to raise construction upon the suit khasra number, whereas, given theirs being prima facie concluded to be trespassers thereon, hence, the instant petition warrants dismissal. Also dehors the above, even the aforestated submission is rudderless, in the face of the plaintiff averring that, on, the relevant excavation activities commencing 8 to 9 months prior to the institution of the suit, thereupon sequeling the defendants to commence construction thereon, whereafter hers promptly instituting the extant suit also constrains this Court to dismiss the instant petition. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed and the impugned orders are maintained and affirmed. However, it is made clear that the the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as any expression on the merits of the case. No order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.