IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3573 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.7.2009 Satwant Kaur ....Petitioner. Versus Kamal Kaur and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, which has been affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Patiala vide order dated 11.6.2009 (Annexure P- 4) whereby the application filed by her under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction in the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she and defendants No.1 and 4 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in respect of two insurance policies in the name of Dipak Chand son of Shri Ram Chand, being mother, wife and minor son, respectively of said Dipak Chand. Along with the aforesaid suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for restraining the Life Insurance Corporation- CR No. 3573 of 2009 -2- defendants No.2 and 3 from disbursing the amount of the insurance policies only to defendants No.1 and 4. The trial court had declined the prayer of the plaintiff- petitioner on the ground that defendants No.1 and 4 were the nominees of Dipak Chand in the insurance policies whereas the mother, though, was legal heir, was entitled to receive the share in accordance with law but could not claim directly from the insurer. The trial court further held that the plaintiff-petitioner had herself sworn an affidavit dated 1.1.2009, wherein, she had given up her right to claim the amount in favour of respondent-defendant No.1 and the Life Insurance Corporation had released a sum of Rs.51,950/- in favour of respondent No.1, i.e. widow of Dipak Chand. The aforesaid order of the trial court was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Patiala vide order dated 11.6.2009. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper-book, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the aforesaid orders as the courts below have rightly held that the nominees are entitled to receive the amount and the insurer gets discharged of the liability on payment thereof to the nominees. However, the legal heir is only entitled to receive the amount in accordance with law. In such a situation, the Life Insurance Corporation could not have been restrained from disbursing the amount to the nominees, i.e. defendants No.1 and 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 2, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE