CR No. 2738 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2738 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.5.2009 Shanti Devi and others .. Petitioners v. Phulia and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 12.6.2006 and 7.4.2009, passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for interim relief, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in joint possession in equal shares of the suit land. Challenge was also made to various sale deeds and decrees of the courts below regarding the suit property. The suit was filed on 9.9.2002. The application for interim relief was filed on 29.5.2006 seeking restrain against alienation of the suit property. The application having been rejected by both the courts below, the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property in dispute was joint ancestral property, which was owned by their forefathers. However, the respondents were misappropriating the property without giving due share to the petitioners. In case the respondents were not restrained from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and the same may unnecessarily result in multiplicity of litigation, which needs to be avoided. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. In the suit, the petitioners challenged sale deeds dated 2.3.1988 and 4.4.1988 and mutations No. 495 and 496 sanctioned on 29.3.1990 on the basis of said sale deeds. They also challenged the judgment and decree dated 6.6.1985, suffered by Nathu Ram deceased, ancestor of respondents No. 2 to 6 in favour of respondent No. 7 in Civil Suit No. 652 of 1985. Challenge was also made to the judgment and decree suffered by respondent No. 7 in favour CR No. 2738 of 2009 [2] of respondent No. 8 on 23.12.2000 in Civil Suit No. 403 of 2000. The learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs while observing that they had not approached the court with clean hands, as on the one hand, they were staking claim over the land situated in village Rampura Bagrian and on the other hand, they were alienating the land situated in Rajasthan, even though both the properties were joint ancestral properties. Even otherwise, the application for interim stay, which was filed 4 years after the filing of the suit, was not held to be bonafide. The learned lower appellate court also concurred with the view expressed by the trial court while holding the suit to be prima facie belated, noticing the fact that the sale deeds and the judgments and decrees to be challenged pertained to the years 1985 and 1988. In fact, before filing of the suit, the property had changed two hands. It was further opined that in case ultimately the suit filed by the petitioners was decreed, the doctrine of lis pendense would apply and further at the most, the petitioners are co- sharers in the property and no injunction can be sought against a co-sharer as every co-sharer is entitled to alienate the property to the extent of his share in the common khewat. Considering the aforesaid facts, where the petitioners had approached the Court seeking interim relief nearly 4 years after the filing of the suit and challenge in the suit is to the sale deeds and decrees, which were registered about two decades ago, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.5.2009 mk