IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3083 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 27.5.2009 Vijay Laxmi and another ......Petitioners Versus Shri Rajesh Verma and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is defendants' revision petition challenging the orders dated 20.10.2008 and 25.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar and the Additional District Judge, Amritsar respectively vide which application of the petitioners filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the respondents from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioners and the respondents are co-owners of the property in dispute and they raised construction jointly after spending huge amount. The petitioners filed the present suit for separate possession by way of partition of the property in dispute. Along with the suit, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the respondents from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit was also filed which has been dismissed by the Courts below vide impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that admittedly, the property in dispute is joint and therefore, the petitioners CR No.3083 of 2009(O&M) -2- shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the respondents are not restrained from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that the plaintiff- petitioners while filing this suit and the application for ad interim injunction have not disclosed that a loan was availed of from Canara Bank and the aforesaid Bank has already taken possession of the property and has put the same to sale for the recovery of an amount of Rs.60,59,467/-. Thus, finding the petitioners guilty of concealment of material facts, the Courts below held that the petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief of an injunction. Moreover, I find from the perusal of the record of the revision petition that there is even no averment made by the petitioners that the respondents are alienating the suit property. Even otherwise also doctrine of lis pendens will apply to the alienation, if any. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. May 27, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE