basis of order of partition, invested huge amount for construction of petrol pump on the site. Ms. Devyani Sharma further argued that bare perusal of judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge below as well as order dated 20.6.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh reveals that the factum with regard to pendency of the appeal against order of partition passed by competent Authority weighed heavily with the learned Courts below, while passing order of restraint against defendant No.1. She submitted that since suit property was ordered to be partitioned by competent Authority, taking into consideration prayer made on behalf of defendant No. 2 as well as other co-owners and, at that time, no objection, if any, was ever raised by plaintiff, application having been filed by him under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 CPC, ought to have been dismissed. Ms. Sharma, further submitted that otherwise also, plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands because, he very conveniently, with a view to have stay order in his favour, concealed the factum with regard to his having filed another civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 125/1 of 2018 for permanent prohibitory injunction, wherein he, while admitting defendant No.1 to be one of cosharers in the suit land, sought permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that property is yet to be partitioned inter se parties. Ms. Sharma further submitted that the factum, if any, with regard to nature of property i.e. ancestral and coparcenery, was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing of civil suit
