IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No. 6081 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.11.2006. Ram Kishan .........Petitioner. Versus Nikka Ram ...........Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary,Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA,J.( ORAL ) The present revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Courts below allowing the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the property in dispute. The learned Courts below found that the respondent plaintiff has a prima facie case and balance of convenience was also in his favour and alienation of property was likely to effect his right of inheritance in the property, which he was claiming as son of Karam Chand. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the plaint were strongly contested by the petitioner and the material on record showed that he was not son of Karam Chand and, therefore, he was not entitled to injunction. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that his right would be protected on the principle of lis pendens if the property is sold. C.R.No. 6081 of 2006 (O&M) [2] I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no force in the same. The petitioner is claiming the property of his brother by denying that he had a son. It is yet to be proved after the parties have led evidence whether the plaintiff is son of Karam Chand or not. The Court on the material available on record has prima facie formed an opinion that plaintiff had a prima facie case in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss in case injunction is not granted. There is no error or illegality in the order which may call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. Dismissed. 20.11.2006 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE