IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA OSA No. 6 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.9.2011 Raja Mahinder Pal ……Appellant Vs. Yudhishter Pal & ors …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant: Mr. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. S.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surinder P. Sharma, Advocate. Per Dev Darshan Sud, J (Oral): The appellant challenges the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 23.3.2010 in an application for interim relief under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit, instituted by Yudhishter Pal. The Hon’ble Single Judge vide his order dated 23.3.2010 has restrained the parties for alienating, encumbering, transferring or creating any charge etc. on the suit property. 2. Learned counsel Sh. Ramakant Sharma submits that the appellant is aggrieved by this order as it fetters his right to deal with the property and submits that the order has been passed adversely to the interest of the appellant as the property is not 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. coparcenery property. If that be so, it will be open to the appellant, herein, to approach the Hon’ble Single Judge with an appropriate application/ petition and show/demonstrate that the property is his individual/self acquired property and not part of the coparcenery property and he can deal with it in accordance with law. We make it clear that this order does not determine the merits of the claim of the parties to the suit. The appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Dev Dharshan Sud), J. 26.9.2011 (sl)