Civil Revision No.2724 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2724 of 1993 Date of Order: 05.01.2011 Jaibir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sunehra and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: None for the parties RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner impugns orders dated 27.11.1992 and 18.08.1993, passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jind and the Additional District Judge, Jind, rejecting his prayer for an ad-interim injunction and dismissing his appeal. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration that sale deeds No.324 and 325, dated 25.08.1987, sale deed no.609, dated 28.03.1989 and sale deed no.301, dated 10.10.1991 are illegal and void as they have been executed without legal necessity and without any benefit accruing to the joint hindu family and estate. The plaintiff/petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of an ad-interim injunction to restrain defendants/respondents from changing the nature of the property in dispute by raising construction and further prayed that the respondents be restrained from alienating the property in dispute. The Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jind, vide order dated dismissed the application by holding that the Civil Revision No.2724 of 1993 -2- plaintiff/petitioner does not have a prima-facie case. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 18.08.1993. I have perused the pleadings and the impugned orders and find no reason to differ with findings recorded by the courts below. The courts below have dismissed the application and the appeal by holding that there is no evidence on record to prima facie establish that the suit property is ancestral/coparcenary. The courts below have also held that alienation of small parcels of land cannot be held to be a wanton wastage of coparcenary property. The petitioner's plea that the adoption deed dated 13.04.1984 has been wrongly ignored as it was registered on 26.03.1992 is neither relevant nor germane to the issues at this stage. Even otherwise, the suit, which was filed in the year 1992 and should have been decided by now. It is for this apparent reason that no one has put in appearance on behalf of the parties. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed, leaving it to the parties to seek revival of the petition, in case of any subsisting grievance. This order shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the rights of the parties. January 05, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE Civil Revision No.2724 of 1993 -3-