C. R. No. 537 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 537 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 04, 2010 Sneh Lata .... Petitioner Vs. Pushpa Rani and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent no. 1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sneh Lata – defendant no.1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, thereby allowing application Annexure P-4 moved by plaintiff-respondent no.1 under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for attachment of house of defendant no.1 before judgment and thereby, house of defendant no.1 has been attached before judgment. C. R. No. 537 of 2009 2 Plaintiff-respondent no.1 has filed suit against petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3 for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and also for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages. Plaintiff alleged in her application Annexure P-4 that defendant no.1 intended to alienate her house no.1115/4 and to go abroad and thereupon, decree that may be passed in the suit, would be frustrated. Defendant no.1, in her reply Annexure P-5, controverted the allegation of the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that temporary injunction has already been granted by the trial court restraining defendant no.1-petitioner from alienating the house in question during pendency of the suit and therefore, order of attachment before judgment could not be passed. Learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent no.1 contended that no such plea has been taken by the petitioner in her reply Annexure P-5 or in the instant revision petition. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner states that instead of ordering attachment of the petitioner's house before judgment, petitioner may be injuncted from alienating her aforesaid house during pendency of the suit and till satisfaction of the decree, if any, that may be passed in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1. Learned counsel for plaintiff- C. R. No. 537 of 2009 3 respondent no.1 has no objection to the aforesaid submission made by counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order Annexure P-6 passed by the trial court and instead thereof, defendant no.1-petitioner is injuncted from alienating her house in question bearing House No.1115/4, Mohalla Kot, Sonepat fill final decision of the suit and further till satisfaction of the decree, if any, that may be passed in favour of plaintiff-respondent no.1. However, nothing in this order shall affect the merits of the suit. August 04, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE