In a revision petition challenging an order granting an ad interim injunction and status quo in a property dispute, the High Court dismissed the revision.
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.
C.R. No. 7177 of 2008
1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
C.R. No. 7177 of 2008
Date of decision: May 1,2009
Harbans Kaur and another
..Petitioners
Versus
Jagdeep Singh and another
..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. Pritam Saini Advocate for the petitioners.
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)
This is defendants revision petition challenging the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit property in any manner whatsoever has been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo regarding possession over the suit property.
On the basis of the judgment in the case of Dalpat Kumar Versus Prahlad Singh 1992(2) Recent Revenue Reports-457, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is the settled law that if any alienation is made, it would be subject to doctrine of lis pendence under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and therefore, there was no justification in passing of the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute with the aforesaid ratio of law as pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. It is also observed that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The Lower Appellate Court in the facts and circumstances of the case has granted the aforesaid relief.
C.R. No. 7177 of 2008
2
There is no justification to interfere in the grant of aforesaid discretionary relief by
the lower Appellate Court.
No other point was urged
Dismissed. May 1, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE
Harbans Kaur
Jagdeep Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
