C.R. No. 3348 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3348 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: January 6, 2009 Chander .. Petitioner v. Braham Parkash .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial court, whereby prayer for interim injunction was declined in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for redemption and declaration. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking restrain against the respondent-defendant from alienating or creating any charge over the suit property and further restraining him from interfering into his peaceful possession. It was stated that due to financial hardship, the property in question was mortgaged with the respondent-defendant and when request was made for redemption thereof on payment of the agreed amount, the respondent-defendant having refused to accede to the request, the suit was filed. The claim of the petitioner-plaintiff was contested by the respondent- defendant with the plea that the property in question was agreed to be sold by the petitioner and his mother for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 5.11.2003. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 5.8.2004. The petitioner- plaintiff got the sale deed of his share of property registered on 23.6.2004. The land has further been sold by the respondent-defendant to Anil Kumar son of Har Lal vide registered sale deed dated 19.1.2006. Considering the prima facie case, the learned trial court found that on one hand, there was a registered sale deed regarding the suit property in favour of C.R. No. 3348 of 2007 [2] the respondent-defendant and on the other hand, certain receipts and writings were sought to be produced by the petitioner claiming that it was in fact a deal of mortgage of land, whereby certain money exchanged hands, part of which was repaid as well. However, it was found that a writing dated 15.5.2004 produced by the petitioner-plaintiff showed that he had parted with possession of the property. Under these circumstances, the learned trial court did not find prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The order was upheld in appeal by the learned lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still in possession of the property in dispute as the same was merely mortgaged without possession and once the petitioner was ready and willing to repay back the loan amount, he was entitled to get the property redeemed and also protect the possession thereof during the pendency of the suit, whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the case set up by the petitioner is totally misconceived. In fact, it was a transaction of sale of property. The same having been sold to the respondent has further been sold to Anil Kumar with possession. Hence, there arises no question of grant of interim injunction. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merits of the controversy least the same may affect the case of either of the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It has come on record in the form of writing dated 15.5.2004 produced by the petitioner himself that he had parted with possession of the property. Further, there is a sale deed registered in favour of the respondent-defendant on 23.6.2004 and further sale of property by the respondent-defendant in favour of Anil Kumar on 19.1.2006. The aforesaid facts are sufficient to find that the petitioner has not been able to make out a prima facie case for interim relief. Both the courts below did not commit any error in dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.1.2009 mk