Civil Revision No. 2500 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2500 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Rajiv Kumar and another .. Petitioners v. Manish Kumar and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Deep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendants are before this Court challenging the orders passed by the learned courts below in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the property of deceased- Murti Devi, who was wife of Hem Raj. The respondents-plaintiffs claimed that Hem Raj was earlier married with Satya Devi and they were born out of that wedlock. After the death of Satya Devi, Hem Raj married with Murti Devi and petitioner No. 1 was born out of that wedlock. Even after expiry of Murti Devi, Hem Raj married with petitioner No. 2- Ganga Devi. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit claiming right in the property owned by Murti Devi. The learned court below restrained the petitioners from alienating the property in dispute in any manner during the pendency of the suit. However, the learned lower appellate court modified it to the extent that the petitioners were restrained only from alienating 5/14th share, i.e., disputed part of the property. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property in dispute was exclusively owned by Murti Devi. The respondents-plaintiffs, who were born out of the wedlock of Hem Raj with Satya Devi had no right, title or interest in that property. The interim order has been passed by the learned court below to the detriment of the petitioners, as in view of the order passed, they are unable to enjoy the property, though owned by them. Civil Revision No. 2500 of 2010 [2] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Once the title of the property is in dispute, in case the petitioners are permitted to sell the same during the pendency of the suit, the same will result in multiplicity of litigation as third party rights may step in. The learned court below has granted appropriate relief to the petitioners by restraining them only from alienating 5/14th share in the property in question, as against the absolute stay granted by the learned trial court. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.4.2010 mk