Civil Revision No. 789 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 789 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.3.2010 Ashok Kumar .. Petitioner v. Hans Raj and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N. S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby the prayer for interim relief in a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration, was dismissed. In the present case, the petitioner filed a suit claiming that he was one of the co-parceners in a joint family property. Further, the prayer was made that as an interim measure, karta should be restrained from alienating the joint family property. Both the courts below having declined the prayer for interim relief, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a peculiar case in which the respondent No. 1, father of the petitioner-plaintiff, is mis- appropriating the joint family property without there being any legal necessity and unless interim injunction is granted at this stage, the entire joint family property will be alienated by him depriving the petitioner of his legitimate share and the same will result into unnecessary litigation. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar and another v. Ram Parkash and others, AIR 1988 SC 576 specifically held that a suit for permanent injunction by a co-parcener against the father from alienating the house property belonging to joint Hindu family for legal necessity was not maintainable because the co-parcener had got the remedy of challenging the sale and getting it set aside in a suit subsequent to the completion of the sale. Civil Revision No. 789 of 2010 [2] Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law and there being no judgment taking a view contrary thereof having been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.3.2010 mk