IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5451 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.2.2010 Jagdish Kumar Bhakri ......Petitioner(s) Versus Mrs. Manju ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby application of the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed and the petitioner has been restrained from dispossessing the respondent from the portion under her possession and further from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. As per the averments made in this petition, the respondent, who is wife of the petitioner, has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner claiming herself to be in possession of the house in question restraining him from interfering into her peaceful possession of the suit property and from alienating the same in any manner. The petitioner is contesting the aforesaid suit on the ground that the house in dispute is his self-acquired property and therefore, he was well within his rights to deal with the same in any manner. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim stay in her favour. The trial Court, vide order dated 30.5.2008, rejected the prayer of the respondent. However, on an appeal, the Additional District Judge, Faribadad, vide impugned order set aside the order passed by the trial CR No.5451 of 2009 -2- Court and allowed the application for ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and restrained the petitioner from dispossessing the respondent-wife and further restraining him from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it stands established on the basis of the material available on record that the suit property was the self-acquired property of the petitioner and therefore, there was absolutely no justification to pass the interim order against him and he had a right to use the property in the manner he likes and thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed by the Lower Appellate Court keeping in view the totality of the circumstances including the relationship between the parties. It is well settled that the revisional Court shall be slow in interfering in the orders passed by the Courts below in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Order 1 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit be decided expeditiously. February 2, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE