C.R. No. 6889 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6889 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29.07.2010 Sahib Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Gursant Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This is plaintiff's revision petition against the order dated 12.10.2009, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands dismissed. The plaintiff / petitioner, filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant / respondents from alienating or creating any charge on the property by claiming it to be coparcenary joint Hindu family property. The case of the plaintiff / petitioner was, that the petitioner had interest in the suit property, which was inherited from his fore- C.R. No. 6889 of 2009 -2- **** fathers, therefore, his father had no right to sell or transfer the property without legal necessity. The petitioner also challenged the transfer deed dated 30.8.2005 in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner sought ad-interim injunction in the suit claiming, that if the defendant / respondents are not restrained from transferring the land, there is likelihood of multiplicity of litigation, as third party interest would be created. This is clear from the fact, that some land already sold to respondents No. 3 to 6. The learned trial Court allowed the application, but the learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the application by holding, that the plaintiff / petitioner is yet to prove that the petitioner had any interest in the suit property to claim a prima facie case in his favour. The learned counsel, for the petitioner contended, that while deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court was only to see the documents on record and to form a prima facie opinion, as the plaintiff / petitioner was yet to prove his case after he was allowed to lead evidence, therefore, the judgments passed by the learned appellate Court does not sustain, as it was prima facie proved by revenue record, that the property was inherited by his father from his forefathers, thus it was as ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary property. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is now well settled law, that transfer made during the pendency of the suit, are hit by the principle of lis pendens, as subsequent transfers would be subject to C.R. No. 6889 of 2009 -3- **** the final decree to be passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, no loss or injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiff / petitioner, if the injunction is not granted. No merit. Dismissed. 29.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE