IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6944 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 11.03.2008 Mahabir ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.S.C.Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate vs. Hukam Singh ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Vikas Mor, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant against the order dated 26.7.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat has been allowed and the ad-interim injunction application moved by the petitioner -plaintiff has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction alleging inter alia that the sale deed dated 3.6.1992 was never executed by him and that the same is a result of fraud and misrepresentation allegedly on the part of the respondent- defendant. In the above-stated suit, the petitioner also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC which was allowed by the learned Civil C.R. No.6944 of 2006 -2- Judge ( Junior Division) vide his order dated 26.7.2006 only to the extent of issuing a direction that in case the respondent-defendant intends to alienate or create any charge over the suit land, he shall obtain prior permission of the Court before such alienation, gift or creation of charge. Aggrieved, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal which, as stated earlier, has been allowed by the learned District Judge, Sonepat vide his impugned order dated 17.11.2006, giving rise to this revision petition. While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 23.12.2006, this Court restrained the respondent from alienating the suit property. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. While the petitioner's claim is that he had merely executed a lease deed on 10.11.1999 in favour of the respondent, the latter has come up with a plea that subsequently sale deed dated 3.6.1992 was also executed in his favour by the petitioner-plaintiff. The entire controversy to be decided by the learned Civil Court pertains to genuineness of the sale deed dated 3.6.1992. In these circumstances, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties and/or creation of third-party rights, the learned trial Court had rightly disposed of the application for ad interim injunction with a direction to the respondent-defendant to seek prior permission of the learned trial Court before alienating, gifting or creating any charge over the suit land. For the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned District C.R. No.6944 of 2006 -3- Judge, Sonepat is set aside and the restraint order passed by the learned trial Court dated 26.7.2006 is restored. The observations made hereinabove or by the learned trial Court shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. March 11, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE