C.R.No.4958 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.4958 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2011 Jaswant Kaur .....Petitioner v. Babu Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.RVS Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.5.2009, Annexure P3, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide which order passed by learned trial Court dated 10.10.2007, Annexure P1, has been modified. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the orders passed by learned Courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for grant of maintenance @ `3,000/- per month has been filed by present petitioner against respondent with a prayer for creating charge on the land owned by respondent. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the `Code') was also filed restraining respondent-defendant to alienate the land C.R.No.4958 of 2009(O&M) -2- in dispute, in any manner. Said application was decided by learned trial Court on the statement of respondent and as per statement of respondent he was restrained from alienating 3 killas of the land, which was allegedly given by him to the present petitioner for cultivation. However, learned appellate Court in appeal filed by respondent-defendant modified the said order and restrained appellant-defendant from alienating only 8 kanals of land on the plea that the purpose can be secured by restraining him alienating that much of land. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that order was passed by learned trial Court as per statement of respondent-defendant and that, however, the order has been modified by learned appellate Court without giving any cogent reasons. It has been further contended that maintenance @ `3,000/- per month, i.e., total `36,000/- per annum cannot be realised from Tekha of only 8 kanals of land. It is further contended that moreover as per statement of respondent-defendant, he had already given three acres of land to the petitioner for her maintenance which she is cultivating. On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that 8 kanals of land is sufficient for realising `3,000/- per month as income. Law is well settled that appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere in the order passed by learned trial Court exercising its discretion in granting or refusing relief of injunction unless it is shown that the order is illegal or that the material facts were ignored while passing the order. However, in the present case, learned trial Court passed the order as per statement of respondent-defendant and there was no compelling C.R.No.4958 of 2009(O&M) -3- reason for appellate Court to have modified the said order. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Mansa, is set aside, whereas order passed by learned trial Court is restored. However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case by learned trial Court on merit. 8.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge