Civil Revision No. 5076 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5076 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.3.2009 Gurmeet Singh ... Petitioner vs The Edward Ganj Public Welfare Association and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the learned court below whereby the application for interim injunction filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction with a plea that no election of the respondent-association has been held since 1983 and the property thereof is being disposed of by the management against the interest of the association. Both the courts did not find any merit in the submissions made by the petitioner/plaintiff and dismissed the application for interim injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case the interim injunction is not granted regarding disposal of the property of the association, as fraud is being played by the persons Incharge of the Association at present, irreparable loss will be caused. The petitioner claims himself to be the member of the association. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As regards the plea of fraud, taking shelter of which the petitioner was seeking injunction against the respondents from disposal of the property is concerned, the learned court below has specifically noticed the fact about the sale of property which, prima facie, did not in any manner was found to be a result of fraud. Comparison was sought to be made with regard to the property sold for Rs. Civil Revision No. 5076 of 2008 (2) 2,000/- and Rs. 16 lacs at the same time. There was justification for this sale transaction of Rs. 2,000/-, as entire sale consideration thereof was paid to the association way back in January 1956 and the possession of the property was also delivered to the vendee. However, the sale-deed could not be executed at the relevant time. Once on facts, the petitioner has not been able to prove his case, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in not granting interim injunction to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. 10.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge