IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.401 of 2009 Date of Decision:6.3.2009. Phullia Ram ..........Petitioner. Versus Suresh Kumar and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner JASWANT SINGH,J Phullia-petitioner-plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 10.11.2008 and 27.5.2008 passed by the learned appellate court and trial court respectively, dismissing his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was alleged that the suit land was ancestral. His brother Gopi Ram despite having contracted two marriages died issueless, of whose share, the petitioner was holding as Gopi Ram prior to his death was residing with him and he alongwith his sons Randhir, Ram Kumar and Baru Ram were looking after the deceased Gopi Ram. It was alleged that respondents-defendants, in respect of the suit property, fraudulently procured a Will No.38/3 dated 6.9.2005 from deceased Gopi Ram and as such the same was not binding upon their rights. CR NO.401 of 2009 2 Alongwith the suit petitioner-plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit for restraining the respondents- defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property in any manner. Respondents-defendants contested the suit as well as the injunction application stating therein that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and as such his suit for declaration simpliciter was not maintainable. Regarding the Will dated 6.9.2005 it was stated that the same was executed by deceased Gopi Ram of his own free will and the same was duly registered with Sub Registrar, Rajound. Both the Courts below after hearing both sides dismissed the injunction application. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned trial Court keeping in view the principles of lis pendens and finding no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, dismissed the injunction application with a rider that in case the respondents- defendants alienate the suit property in near future, they will keep copy of the sale deed on the records of the trial Court to enable the petitioner-plaintiff to implead the subsequent vendees as party to the suit. The learned appellate Court while upholding the order passed by the learned trial Court observed that the Will dated 6.9.2005 is a registered document and as such simply on the basis of allegations made by the plaintiff- petitioner that it is a forged and fabricated document the respondents, no CR NO.401 of 2009 3 finding could be returned about the genuineness of the Will in question, especially when the parties are yet to lead their evidence. Moreover the learned appellate Court also took note of the rider put by the learned trial Court so as to safeguard the interest of the petitioner-plaintiff. In my opinion, both the Courts below, on the basis of material so far available on the record have rightly exercised their discretion in not granting the temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. With regard to the Annexures P/4 to P/7, which have been taken on record vide separate order of even date and perused by me, I do not deem it appropriate to consider the same atr this stage. No merit. Dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 6.3.2009 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge