Civil Revision No.4280 of 2007 ..2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4280 of 2007 Date of Decision: 20th Nov.2009. Gurpreet Kaur & anr. ....Petitioners. Versus Shalinder Singh & Ors. .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the respondents. * * * Sabina,J.(Oral) Plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, selling and interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 19.05.2007. The said order was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 25.07.2007. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Defendants-respondents had purchased the property in dispute Civil Revision No.4280 of 2007 ..2. measuring 74K-12M vide sale deeds dated 2.6.1999 and 1.7.1999. Thereafter, the defendants came in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs are basing their claim over the property in dispute on the basis of sale deeds dated 30.08.2005 and 07.11.2005 with regard to 17 kanals 13 marlas out of the land measuring 74 kanals 12 marla. The learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has observed that from the sale deed produced on record by the plaintiff, it was not clear that as to which portion out of the suit land had been purchased by them and how they came in possession of the suit property which was in possession of the defendants on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour in the year 1999. Moreover the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants had neither been challenged nor had been set aside so far. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that in case any alienation is made by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, the same shall be hit by principle of lis pendense. The findings of the court below that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favour thus, call for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 20th Nov.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge