JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. Both these petitions involve identical set of facts and questions of law, therefore, both the petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 2. CMPMO No. 182 of 2022 has arisen from an order which has its genesis in Civil Suit titled Rajeev vs. Jai Singh, pending before learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Rohru and CMPMO No. 540 of 2022 arises from an order having genesis in Civil Suit titled Kishori Lal vs. Jai Singh, pending before learned Civil Judge, Jubbal, Camp at Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. 3. Petitioner herein is defendant in both the suits. Respondents in these petitions are plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs are real brothers. 4. The plaintiffs have filed their respective suits against the defendant on the identical cause of action. Their grievance is that the land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 15 Min- 56-Min, Khasra No. 629/480, measuring 00-32-22 hectares in Chak Mandharli, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla (for short “the suit land”) is joint between the plaintiffs, defendant and other co-sharers. No partition has taken place. The suit land abuts the road and defendant had started raising construction thereon, which according to them was prejudicial to their rights. 5. Along with their respective suits, the plaintiffs also filed applications for interim injunction, restraining defendant from raising any construction on the suit land till final disposal of the suits. The applications for interim injunction filed by both the plaintiffs in their respective suits were dismissed by learned trial Courts. However, in separate appeals preferred by plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC the orders passed by learned trial Courts have been reversed and interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, whereby the defendant has been restrained from raising construction on the suit land. 6. Aggrieved against the orders, passed by the learned Appellate Courts in respective appeals of the plaintiffs, defendant is before this Court by way of the instant petitions. 7. Defendant has assailed the impugned orders on the grounds that the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact regarding recording of separate possession of co-sharers in the revenue records since long which prima-facie was proof of family arrangement/settlement/partition, as claimed by defendant. As per defendant, he has 1/6th share in the suit land. 7. Defendant has assailed the impugned orders on the grounds that the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact regarding recording of separate possession of co-sharers in the revenue records since long which prima-facie was proof of family arrangement/settlement/partition, as claimed by defendant. As per defendant, he has 1/6th share in the suit land. Though, the entire suit land was in his exclusive possession, he was raising construction on land, which was much less than his share. It has also been contended on behalf of the defendant that the impugned orders suffer from illegality in as much as the same have been passed without correctly assessing the facts of the case at the touch stone of established legal principles. 8. On the other hand, plaintiffs have supported the impugned orders. They have alleged that the suit land has special value as it abuts the road and in case the defendant is allowed to raise construction thereon, the rights of plaintiffs shall be prejudiced at the time of partition, which had already been sought by plaintiff Kishori Lal by filing an application under Section 123 of H.P. Land Revenue Act before the competent revenue court. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 10. Para-3 of the plaint instituted by plaintiff Rajeev reads as under: “That the land of joint family/co-owners is situated in Revenue Chak Mandharli and is comprised in Khata No. 15, Khatuani No. 53 to 62 total 45 kittas measuring 10-74-86 hectares and Khata No. 14 Khatauni No. 50 to 52 total 4 kittas measuring 00-42- 66 hectares and Khata No. 17 Khatauni No. 64 total 2 kitas measuring 00-02-80 hectares and Khata No. 16 Khatauni No. 63 1 kita measuring 00-01-86 hectares.” 11. Copy of jamabandi of the entire land comprised in Khata No. 15 is available in the record of CMPMO No. 540 of 2022. The total area in this khata is 10-74-86 hectares, corresponding to approximately 146 bighas. Defendant has 1/6th share in the entire khata, which correspondence to approximately 25 bighas. The jamabandi also records separate possession of different co-owners and for such purpose separate khataunis have been recorded. 12. The total area in this khata is 10-74-86 hectares, corresponding to approximately 146 bighas. Defendant has 1/6th share in the entire khata, which correspondence to approximately 25 bighas. The jamabandi also records separate possession of different co-owners and for such purpose separate khataunis have been recorded. 12. Plaintiff Rajeev has specifically mentioned in his plaint that on account of large family, branches of respective co-owners started living separately for the sake of convenience in the houses owned by joint family located on different locations. It has also been averred in the plaint filed by plaintiff Sh. Rajeev that different co-owners have raised construction on different parcels of land. Plaintiffs have tried to justify that such construction was with the consent of other co-owners. 13. Defendant in his written statement has submitted that about three decades back a family arrangement had taken place and according to which, the co-sharers were put in exclusive possession of separate parcels of land. It has further been contended that the family arrangement had taken effect and is evident from the long standing revenue entries. The defendant has asserted that the entire suit land has come to his share. In alternative he has submitted that the construction being raised by him is on an area which is less than his share even in the suit land. 14. Thus, on facts, it is not disputed that the co-owners including the parties to the suits have their separate possessions on separate parcels of land and they have also raised constructions of their respective houses/buildings. 15. Preventive relief of injunction is granted at the discretion of the Court. Section 36 of Specific Relief Act vests the courts with power to grant injunction at its discretion. Whereas perpetual injunction can be passed in terms of provisions of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Temporary injunctions are governed by provisions of CPC. In order to succeed in getting the relief of injunction, one has to qualify three way test. He has to show existence of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. Thus, the courts while deciding the prayer for interim injunction have to assess the facts and circumstances of each case at the touch stone of aforesaid principles. 16. As noticed above, the question whether the land has already been partitioned or is yet to be partitioned is subject to final adjudication of the suit. Thus, the courts while deciding the prayer for interim injunction have to assess the facts and circumstances of each case at the touch stone of aforesaid principles. 16. As noticed above, the question whether the land has already been partitioned or is yet to be partitioned is subject to final adjudication of the suit. The fact remains that the co-owners are holding their separate possession of separate parcels of land. Such arrangement is stated to be existing for about three decades and this fact has not been disputed by the plaintiffs. Another fact which is glaringly available on the record is that the suit land forms only a small portion of the entire joint land. The parties are having joint land in more than one khata. Even the khata, in which suit land is situated, has total area of 10-74-86 hectares. At the time of partition, the land in entire khata is to be taken into consideration and not in specific portion thereof. The equity between the co-sharers is settled by looking at the entire land vis-à-vis its location, value and potentiality etc. 17. It has also come on record that the construction being raised by defendant is on about 441 square meters. The defendant has the share equal to 17914 square meters in the entire khata. The allegation or apprehension of the plaintiffs that the construction being raised by defendant will prejudice their rights does not appear to be based on sound and legal reasoning. Though, the plaintiffs have tried to describe the suit land having higher value on the premise that it abuts the road, they have not described the potentiality of remaining joint land in the khata. It is not shown that on what basis the plaintiffs have drawn distinction between the suit land and remaining part of land in the khata. Even the suit land measures 3,222 square meters and the defendant is raising construction on 441 square meters. A copy of field map available on record shows that defendant has started raising construction by covering 21 meters of suit land in length abutting the road. The field map also reveals that the total length of the suit land abutting the road is approximately 120 meters. Viewed from that angle also, the defendant is not trying to cover the length of the suit land abutting the road more than his share. 18. The field map also reveals that the total length of the suit land abutting the road is approximately 120 meters. Viewed from that angle also, the defendant is not trying to cover the length of the suit land abutting the road more than his share. 18. In absence of any objective comparison of suit land with other parts of the land in joint khata, it cannot be assumed that the suit land is of special value to the plaintiffs. That being so, the plaintiffs in order to succeed in getting interim injunction against the defendant had to specifically plead and prima-facie satisfy the Court that some exclusivity was attached to that portion of suit land, which was being sought to be utilized by defendant by raising construction. It is not the case where the defendant is trying to exceed his share. 19. The fact that in past also different co-owners including the parties to suit have raised construction also weakens the case of plaintiffs. When plaintiffs had no objection when the co-owners had raised construction on different parts of the joint land in the same khata, they must come out with special reasons to raise objections against construction being raised by defendant. Another fact which cannot be ignored is that there is another structure on suit land being used as “Panchayat Ghar.” At the time of its construction again there was no objection. Admittedly, no other co-owners have raised any objection to the construction being raised by defendant. The conduct of plaintiffs smacks of some ulterior purpose than the assertion of any legal right. 20. In the first instance, Kishori Lal filed suit. His interim application was dismissed by learned trial Court on 30.3.2022. Thereafter, on the identical cause of action, plaintiff Rajeev filed suit on 4.4.2022. Such conduct of plaintiffs is sufficient to question their bona-fide. 21. Injunction being a discretionary and equitable relief, courts have to analyse the entire available material to assess the existence of prima-facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. Learned Appellate Court has failed to assess and analysis the above noticed relevant material and has erred in granting the injunction in favour of plaintiffs. 22. The photographs placed on record show that defendant has raised construction upto plinth level. Learned Appellate Court has failed to assess and analysis the above noticed relevant material and has erred in granting the injunction in favour of plaintiffs. 22. The photographs placed on record show that defendant has raised construction upto plinth level. By placing restraint on further construction till indeterminate period, defendant will not only be deprived from his right to have his house/building, he shall also be lead to financial loss as the construction prices are escalating day by day. In partition proceedings, the plaintiffs are not likely to loose all equities, keeping in view the largeness of the joint land. 23. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, both the petitions are allowed. Order dated 11.5.2022 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6-R/14 of 2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. Camp at Rohru and order dated 1.10.2022 in CMA No. 1-R/14 of 2022, passed by learned District Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. are set aside and the applications of plaintiffs in their respective suits for interim injunctions are dismissed. 24. Petitions are accordingly disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.