Civil Revision No. 4468 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4468 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.1.2010 Bimla Devi .. Petitioner v. Ram Mehar and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 16.7.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the order passed by the learned trial court in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim relief was reversed and the application was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession to the extent of 1/10th share in the agricultural land detailed in the title of the suit. The petitioner is sister of respondents No. 1 and 2 and sister-in-law (sister of husband) of respondent No. 3 and daughter of respondent No. 4. The suit was filed on 13.3.2008 to challenge a judgment and decree suffered by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondents on 14.6.1980. Father of the petitioner, namely, Baru expired in the year 1989. The trial court, on consideration of the application filed for interim stay, restrained both the parties from alienating the property more than their shares without permission of the court. However, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the order by recording that the suit had been filed 28 years after the passing of the decree and was highly belated and the petitioner had not been able to make out a prima facie case at this belated stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss in case the suit property is disposed of by the respondents during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner has legal right to claim share in the property owned by her father, which cannot be deprived of. In fact, repeated requests made by her were not heard. She came to know about the passing of the Civil Revision No. 4468 of 2009 [2] decree in 2005, when mutation was entered in favour of respondent No. 3, widow of one of the brothers of the petitioner and immediately the suit was filed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Apparently, the suit is highly belated. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why the suit was filed in 2008, when the decree, which is sought to be challenged, was suffered by the father of the petitioner in favour of his sons and widow way bak on 14.6.1980. It has not been suggested that the parties were having strained relations. The petitioner was married long back during the life time of the father. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in reversing the order passed by the trial court and dismissing the application for interim stay. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.1.2010 mk