The court dismissed the revision, holding that no grounds existed to interfere with the prior order permitting the sale of property. It directed the vendee not to further alienate the property without court permission to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2675 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: May 12, 2009
Chameli
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Navaeen Sharma
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N. Jindal, J
Earlier the order was passed for selling the property with the permission of the court and now the court has granted permission and safeguarded the rights of the plaintiffs that the vendee will not further alienate the property without seeking permission of the court.
No grounds to interfere. However, in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, the vendee will not dispose of the property any further.
Dismissed.
May 12, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge
Chameli
Navaeen Sharma
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
