CR No.6221 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6221 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Jagdish & Ors. ....Petitioners Vs. Smt.Kamlesh & Ors. ..Respondents Present: Mr.I.K.Mehta, Sr. Advocate, with Mrs. Ranjit Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the rejection of the petition moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). The plaintiff/petitioners brought a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction in which an application was moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from alienating any part of the suit land and from changing the nature of suit land by raising construction till CR No.6221 of 2008 2 the decision of the suit. Learned trial court held that it was admitted case that the civil suit seeking permanent injunction in respect of Khasra No.69 i.e. part of the suit property was filed by the plaintiff/petitioners in which injunction application was dismissed. It was claimed that the appeal against the said decision was pending. Learned trial court, therefore, observed that the relief claimed in the present suit would be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. Thus, it is held that there was no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/plaintiffs entitling them to seek injunction. Findings recorded by the learned trial court stand affirmed by the learned lower appellate court. Mr. I.K.Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that CR No.573 of 2007 filed by the petitioners against rejection of their application qua Khasra No.69 is pending in this court in which status quo order has been granted and therefore, the petitioners were entitled to same relief in the present case. It is also the case of the petitioners that learned courts below committed an error in not considering the authorities relied upon by the petitioners in support of their contentions. Learned senior counsel thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, 2005 (1) Civil Court Cases 430 to contend that the petitioners were entitled to injunction to protect the nature of the property during the pendency of the suit and therefore, learned courts below committed an error in rejecting the application. It is not disputed by the learned senior counsel for the CR No.6221 of 2008 3 petitioners that earlier suit was filed by them with respect to khasra No.69 which is part of disputed property. The only contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that earlier petitioners did not have any threat with regard to the other part of the property and therefore, they were entitled to maintain second suit. This plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The suit as framed prima facie is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code as the relief of injunction was available to the petitioners qua the remaining land also in the previous suit which they chose not to include. Learned courts below, therefore, were justified in holding that the petitioners had no prima facie case so as to claim an injunction against the defendant/respondents. No ground for interference with the well reasoned judgments of the learned courts below is made out. Dismissed. 11.11.2008 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge