Civil Revision No. 627 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 627 of 2010 Date of decision : November 09, 2010 Sarita Duggal and others ....Petitioners versus Narinder Kumar Khanna and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 Mr. PIP Singh, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Petitioners having failed in both the courts below to secure temporary injunction have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision petition to challenge orders of the courts below. The petitioners are daughters of defendant-respondent no. 1. They have filed suit alleging that they have 3/4 share i.e. 1/4 share each in the suit property which was previously owned by petitioners' mother Kanta Rani and has been inherited by petitioners and respondent no. 1 in equal shares. Respondent no. 1 has set up unregistered Will to claim the entire Civil Revision No. 627 of 2010 -2- suit property. Respondent no. 1 has mortgaged the suit property with respondent no. 2-Bank. Respondent no. 2-Bank has issued notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, SARFAESI Act). The petitioners have challenged the said notice in the suit and have claimed declaration that they are owners in possession of 3/4 share of the suit property. The petitioners sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the petitioners over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Suit and the application have been resisted by the defendants/respondents. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala vide order dated 6.1.2010, Annexure P/5 dismissed plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Patiala vide judgment dated 20.1.2010, Annexure P/6. Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition assailing order Annexure P/5 of the trial court and judgment Annexure P/6 of the appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Will set up by defendant no. 1 is unregistered one and has not been probated and the said Will has been forged. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that the petitioners in collusion with their father respondent no. 1 have filed the suit to deprive respondent no. 2-Bank of its right to recover Civil Revision No. 627 of 2010 -3- the outstanding loan amount by sale of the suit property which has been mortgaged by respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2 for raising loan. Counsel for respondent no. 1 admits that respondent no. 1 had mortgaged suit property with respondent no. 2 for raising loan in question regarding which notice Annexure P/7 under the SARFAESI Act has been issued. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Mother of the petitioners allegedly died in the year 1986. However, petitioners filed the instant suit on 4.9.2009 i.e. 23 years after the death of the petitioners' mother. Suit property had been mortgaged by respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2 in the year 2006. The petitioners throughout remained silent. At this stage, the petitioners have no prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also not in their favour because respondent no. 2 Bank wants to recover its outstanding amount by sale of the suit property which is under mortgage. Both the courts below have found that the petitioners have not made out case for temporary injunction. The discretion exercised by the courts below cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or unreasonable. Consequently, orders of both the courts below do not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision, which is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 09, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'