CR No. 2535 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2535 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.5.2009 M/s Suchsari Properties Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner v. M/s Span Retailers Pvt. Limited .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, Ms. Aanchal Sehgal and Mr. Ankur Mehendru, Advocates for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner-defendant has approached this Court challenging the order dated 15.4.2009, passed by the learned court below whereby on appearance of the petitioner after service of notice in the suit while adjourning the case to 19.5.2009 for filing written statement, was restrained from alienating the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the interim order, which has been granted by the learned court below is not even prayed for by the respondent-plaintiff as the suit is only for recovery of money which was paid by the respondent-plaintiff to the petitioner-defendant in terms of agreement to sell executed for sale of the property situated at Gurgaon. The court should not have passed the order ex-parte without hearing the petitioner and getting the reply on the application filed by the respondent for interim prayer. The submission is that the suit itself was not maintainable for recovery of money, as it was the respondent-plaintiff who was the defaulter. The court did not have jurisdiction at Gurgaon to entertain the suit as no cause of action had arisen at Gurgaon. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order at this stage, as while passing the impugned interim order on 15.4.2009, case was adjourned to 19.5.2009. All the contentions, which are sought to be raised by the petitioner before this Court, can very well be raised before the court below as the application for interim relief has not yet been finally decided. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the same CR No. 2535 of 2009 [2] would not debar the petitioner to raise all the issues, which have been raised in the present petition, before the learned court below at the appropriate stage for consideration in accordance with law. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.5.2009 mk