Civil Revision No.6711 of 2007(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6711 of 2007 (O&M) Tarsem Raj Verma ... Petitioner VERSUS Dr.Adeep Bhatnagar and others ... Respondents and Civil Revision No.724 of 2008 (O&M) Mamta Kumari ... Petitioner VERSUS Dr.Adeep Bhatnagar and others ... Respondents Decided on : September 01, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CR No.6711 of 2007 (respondent No.4 in CR No.724 of 2008). Mr.Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CR No.6711 of 2007 (petitioner in CR No.724 of 2008). Mr.M.S.Bedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for respondents No.1,2 and 4 in CR No.6711 of 2007 (respondents No.1 to 3 in CR No.724 of 2008). Civil Revision No.6711 of 2007(O&M) [ 2 ] A.N.JINDAL, J.- This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions bearing Nos.CR No.6711 of 2007 and 724 of 2008, wherein, challenging the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs – respondents Dr.Adeep Bhatnagar and Praveen. The property was originally owned by Sharda Bhatnagar wife of Kanti Parshad Bhatnagar and on her death, it was inherited by him. Kanti Parshad Bhatnagar has one son Dr.Adeep Bhatnagar and one daughter Praveen, both plaintiffs (now respondents) Kanti Parshad Bhatnagar sold the demised premises to respondent - Mamta Kumari (petitioner in CR No.724 of 2008), who further sold it to petitioner - Tarsem Raj Verma (respondent No.4 in CR No.724 of 2008). The children of Kanti Parshad Bhatnagar filed this suit for declaration challenging the sale-deed executed by their father on the ground it being illegal, wrong and void, which was contested by the defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction. However, the Appellate Court accepted the appeal. The impugned order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) appears to be perverse, arbitrary and against facts. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs themselves had executed a power of attorney in favour of Kanti Parshad Bhatnagar, who in his own capacity as well as the Attorney of the plaintiffs sold the property to Mamta Kumari. As such, the plaintiffs cannot be said to have any prima facie case in their favour. The sale deed being a registered Civil Revision No.6711 of 2007(O&M) [ 3 ] document, prima facie, appears to have been so executed for consideration. It is still to be decided on merits as to whether the sale-deed is void or without consideration. Prima facie, there is no ground to hold the sale- deed as void. Without holding that the order was perverse, arbitrary, capricious or against facts, the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in declining the application for interim injunction. As such, the Appellate Court appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction. Resultantly, the petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) is set aside and that of the Trial Court dated 18.5.2007 is restored. September 01, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE