IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.100 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.1.2009. Sunil Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus Sheela Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Courts below in an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The challenge in the suit is to the mutation being entered in favour of respondent No1. and further for implementation of the judgment and decree in favour of petitioners. Both the courts below rejected the prayer for interim injunction on the ground that there was a judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent No.1 by the learned Lower Appellate Court which was upheld upto the Hon'ble the Supreme court, the mutation was entered in favour of respondent No.1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not party to the suit filed, has no legs to stand as their predecessor in interest were party in that suit. Once the earlier judgment and decree in favour of predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was set aside in a suit filed by respondent No.1 and the judgment having been upheld upto the Hon'ble Surpeme Court, prima-facie no case is made out for grant of injunction in favour of petitioners, as in the suit challenge is to the mutation entered in favour of respondent No.1 in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 12.1.2009 JUDGE Reema