IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 130 of 2011 Decided on: 22.09.2011 Dharam Chand …Petitioner. Versus Chaman Lal & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dated 09.02.2011, whereby he allowed the appeal of the defendants, vacated the stay order granted by the learned trial Court whereby the defendants were restrained from getting the property of Ghullo Devi mutated in their favour and from withdrawing the cash amount deposited in the name of deceased Ghullo Devi. 2. I have gone through the original application filed by the plaintiff - applicant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and I find that the only prayer made was that the respondents be restrained from getting mutated the suit property in their names and from 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- withdrawing / receiving the cash amount deposited in the name of deceased Ghullo Devi. As far as the first issue is concerned, no prayer was made that the respondents be restrained from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property. Therefore, such prayer being now made cannot be permitted. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner-plaintiff to file appropriate application in this behalf and the previous order shall not come in the way, if such application is moved and shall be decided on its own merits. 3. Similarly, the only prayer made with respect to the second issue was that the defendants be restrained from receiving/withdrawing the cash amount deposited in the name of deceased Ghullo Devi. No prayer was made that if they do so, they may be asked to give surety for the same, neither any details of the amounts were given. In the absence of any such details, the learned lower Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned order. However, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to move appropriate application for amendment of the plaint and in case, the plaint is allowed to be amended, then he can move the application praying that conditions be laid on the defendants. This application, if moved, shall be decided by the learned trial Court strictly in accordance with law. 4. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 22, 2011 (rajni)