C.R. No. 2159 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2159 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.9.2009 Jagjit Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Pritam Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.K. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.4.2006, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sangrur vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands dismissed. The plaintiff / petitioner brought a suit for declaration claiming himself to be the absolute owner of the property left by Bikkar Singh with a consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming himself to be illegitimate son from the loins of Bikkar Singh born to defendant / respondent. In the plaint the case set up by the petitioner was that the respondent / the mother of petitioner was merely a maid servant of late Sh. C.R. No. 2159 of 2006 2 Bikkar Singh and, therefore, she has no right to inherit the property, whereas the petitioner being the only son was entitled to inherit the whole of the property. The learned trial Court ordered the maintenance of status quo. The learned lower appellate Court on the basis of the documents placed on record came to the conclusion that it was prima facie proved that respondent was wife of Bikkar Singh. It is yet to be established by leading evidence whether the marriage between the parties was nullity, as per the stand taken by the plaintiff / petitioner. Even otherwise the alienation of property, if any, during the pendency of the suit would be hit by the principle of lis pendens and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner. It cannot be said that the petitioner is going to suffer irreparable loss in case the injunction is not granted, as none of the ingredients for grant of temporary injunction is fulfilled in the present case. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court. No merit. Dismissed. 22.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE