C.R. No. 4702 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4702 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 20, 2009 Gurinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Joginder Singh and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated July 31, 2009 passed by the trial Court in an application under Section 151 CPC observing that the application for interim relief of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC would be considered after disposal of the amended application, after being considered on merits. A perusal of the record indicates that the plaintiff- petitioner had field a suit for injunction against Joginder Singh and Gurpreet Singh C.R. No. 4702 of 2009 [2] defendant/ respondents No.1 and 2. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by defendant- respondent No.1 for permission to alienate the property to Ashok Kumar and Tara Chand. The permission was granted by the Court to alienate the suit property to Ashok Kumar and Tara Chand, however, subject to condition that plaintiff- petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the suit property otherwise in due course of law. A perusal of order dated June 15, 2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, indicates that the original defendants had been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff- petitioner from the suit property except in due course of law. After the property in dispute had been purchased on July 24, 2009 by Ashok Kumar and Tara Chand, an application for addition of their names and amendment of the plaint is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that the possession of the petitioner is not protected as in the sale deed which was executed by defendants No.1 and 2 on July 24, 2009 after the interim order dated June 15, 2009, there is a recital that the possession of the property has been delivered to the vendees. Apprehending mischief, the petitioner seems to have filed an application under Section 151 CPC which has been dismissed vide impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction be given to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC adjudication of which has been deferred vide impugned order dated July 31, 2009. C.R. No. 4702 of 2009 [3] Taking into consideration the abovesaid circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the extension of interim order dated June 15, 2009, restraining the defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiff - petitioner from the suit property except in due course of law. The said interim order will remain operative against the defendant- respondents No.1 and 2 and anyone else claiming rights through them including the vendees who have stepped into the shoes of respondents. With the above observations this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to expeditiously consider the application for amendment of the plaint and decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on merits, within a period not beyond two months from the next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court. The directions passed by this Court will remain operative till that period. Nothing mentioned in this order will effect the merits of the case. The trial Court will consider the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC independently irrespective of any observations made hereinabove. August 20, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE