CR No. 1350 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 4536-37-CII of 2008 & CR No. 1350 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.11.2009 Sombir ....Petitioner. Versus Smt. Khazani Devi and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 and 3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. Nos. 4536-37-CII of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 1350 of 2008 The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by him under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit was dismissed and the order dated 12.1.2008 (Annexure P-4) CR No. 1350 of 2008 -2- whereby on appeal thereagainst, that order was affirmed by the lower appellate court. The brief facts essential for the decision of the present petition are that Smt. Chhoti, mother of the plaintiff, filed a petition under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking permission to sell the share of the petitioner in the agricultural land on the ground that it was necessary for the welfare and betterment of the minor and also to repay the amount of loan taken by his father, namely, Pala Ram, since deceased. That petition was allowed by the Guardian Judge, Jind, vide order dated 27.4.2006 and the mother of the plaintiff was permitted to sell the share of the plaintiff-petitioner. It was directed by the Guardian Judge that the sale proceeds would be deposited in a nationalized bank and the same would not be withdrawn without prior permission of the Court or till the petitioner attained the age of majority. It is this order which has been challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner by filing a suit for possession as well as for permanent injunction. An application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the land in dispute had been filed along with the suit. The trial court while declining the interim injunction to the plaintiff-petitioner, in para 6 of its order, had recorded as under:- “6. Perusal of certified copy of order dated 10.11.2006 reveals that true attested copy of sale deed was placed on the file and it has been ordered that since the order of the court dated 27.04.2006 has been complied with, no further action is warranted. The mother of the plaintiff, defendant CR No. 1350 of 2008 -3- No.2 was to deposit the sale consideration in the name of plaintiff in the nationalized bank. After complying with the conditions of the court defendant No.1 became owner of the suit land and being the owner, she has a right to alienate the land to any person. If the mother of the plaintiff failed to watch the interest of the minor and failed to deposit the amount in nationalized bank, the plaintiff has a right to sue her. Defendant No.1 is the owner of the land and she will suffer irreparable loss in case she is restrained to alienate the suit land. Thus, the plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. The application filed by the plaintiff is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is directed to defendant Nos.1 and 3 to disclose the name of the persons in whose favour, they alienate the suit land in case of alienation.” The said order was affirmed on appeal by the lower appellate court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. In view of the above and for the observations recorded by the trial court, reproduced above and affirmed by the lower appellate court, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no CR No. 1350 of 2008 -4- merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The trial court is, however, directed to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the civil suit in accordance with law. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE