C.R. 1155 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 1155 of 2011 Date of decision:17.2.2011 M/S Shree Bhumika International Ltd Petitioner vs. M/s Alka Plywood Pvt. Ltd Respondent Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is a defendant in a suit for ejectment and for recovery of mesne profit, damages and compensation for use and occupation of the premises, which is stated to be an industrial shed. Vide order dated 31.1.2011 (Annexure P-1), the learned Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Gurgaon has actually passed an order on an application of the plaintiff- respondent dated 10.5.2010 under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and allowed the same giving a direction that the defendant- petitioner will not alienate his residential flat without prior permission of the court. Learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner has vehemently contended that the application dated 10.5.2010 stood dismissed as not pressed on 4.11.2010 by the Civil Judge (Sr.D) Gurgaon vide a judicial order dated, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. It is submitted that an application, which stood already dismissed on 4.11.2010 could not have been taken up again and decided casually. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the C.R. 1155 of 2011 -2- opinion that a casual approach has been adopted by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.D) Gurgaon while issuing an interim injunction order dated 31.1.2011. The legality and propriety of the impugned order is not intentionally taken into consideration in view of the alternative remedy available to the defendant- petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1(q)(r) CPC,keeping in view the principle of adopting judicial restrain . The revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the defendant- petitioner to take up all the pleas before the lower appellate court. February 17 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE