IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 484 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Nand Lal and others ....Petitioners. Versus M/s Kisan Builders ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.11.2006 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) was allowed; and also the order dated 3.12.2009 vide which, on appeal, that order was affirmed by the lower appellate court. It is not necessary to go into the factual matrix of the case as the only grievance of the petitioners is that the courts below while deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code in favour of the plaintiff had granted ad-interim injunction in respect of the entire property measuring 9000 square yards whereas the agreement to CR No. 484 of 2008 -2- sell dated 28.6.2005 which is in question in the civil suit relates to half share in the aforesaid property measuring 9000 square yards. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in view thereof, the courts below were not justified in passing the restraint order in favour of the plaintiff-respondent qua the entire property, i.e. 9000 square yards. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners, he has very fairly conceded that the injunction could be granted only in respect of the suit property and not in respect of the entire property. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the file, the order dated 15.11.2006 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the interim injunction granted shall be qua the suit property only and not the entire property, i.e. 9000 square yards. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. August 7, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE