Petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging lower courts' order granting interim injunction restraining her from alienating suit property to the respondent. The High Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed; injunction order affirmed.
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.
Civil Revision No.556 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.556 of 2009
Date of Decision:22.07.2009
Madhu Anand w/o Anand Kishore
.....Petitioner
versus
Sandeep Kumar and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral)
Defendant No.1-petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, affirming that of the trial Court dated 14.03.2007 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction was allowed and the defendant-petitioner has been restrained from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the main suit.
The lower appellate Court while affirming the order of the trial Court noticed that the execution of the agreement to sell dated 28.04.2005 had been admitted by defendant No.1 and further that she had executed another agreement to sell the same property in favour of defendant No.2
2
Civil Revision No.556 of 2009
regarding which the agreement dated 28.04.2005 was already executed with the plaintiff. Accordingly, both the Courts after considering the arguments had recorded that the plaintiff had a prime facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and he shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury in case defendant No.1 succeeded in alienating the suit property to defendant No.2 and allowed the application of the plaintiff for ad interim injunction.
In view of the above observations of the Courts below, no ground to interfere by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
Dismissed.
Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
July 22, 2009 seema
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 to set aside the injunction restraint on alienating suit property during the pendency of the main suit.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Madhu Anand w/o Anand Kishore
Sandeep Kumar and another
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
