In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2007 of 2008 (O&M) Arun Kumar ..... Petitioner vs Smt. Pushpa Devi and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court whereby interim injunction has been declined to the petitioner on an application filed under Section XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration to the effect that judgment and decree of the civil court dated 31.7.2007 passed in favour of respondent no. 1 in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement, is not binding on the petitioner on the ground that the property in question was a joint Hindu family property and the father of petitioner as one of the coparcener had no right to sell the same except for the legal necessity. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for respondent no.1 very fairly submitted that in case the petitioner files objection on or before 28.2.2009 in the execution petition filed by him, till such time the objection are decided by the Executing Court, the petitioner may continue in possession of the property and he will not be disturbed. To this fair stand of respondent no. 1, learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any objection. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in view of the fair stand of the counsel for the parties by directing that in case the petitioner files objection in the Executing Court to the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2007, on or before 28.2.2009, till such time the execution petition is finally decided, the possession of the petitioner of the home in question shall not be disturbed. 15.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge