Civil Revision No.5647 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5647 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Surjeet Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Sukhmander Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Sukhmander Kaur widow of Gurdev Singh and others-respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs(for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Ripudaman Singh son of Sham Singh-proforma respondent No.5-defendant No.1 and Surjeet Kaur daughter of Sham Singh-petitioner- defendant No.2(for short “the defendants”). 2. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner-defendant No.2 filed the application for permission to alienate her share in the property in dispute. The plaintiffs refuted her prayer on the ground that it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. 3. The trial Court dismissed the application of petitioner-defendant No.2, by means of impugned order dated 31.05.2011(Annexure P-4), the operative part of which is as under:- “I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record carefully. The defendant No.2 Surjit Kaur is seeking permission to sell the property. The Civil Revision No.5647 of 2011 2 photocopy of the agreement dated 21.2.2011 has been filed by defendant No.2. Perusal of the same shows that proposed purchaser from Surjit Kaur is Gagandeep Kaur wife of Yadwinder Singh whereas the agreement has been signed on behalf of purchaser by one Raj Kumar son of Jagdish Chander resident of Abohar. No connection has been shown between Gagandeep Kaur and Raj Kumar who had signed on behalf of Gagandeep Kaur on the photocopy of the said agreement produced by defendant No.2. No doubt, it has been observed in order dated 12.2.2009 that the defendant can alienate the suit property with permission of the Court, however, the same to be granted only upon cogent ground being made thereof. It is not mere the wish of the defendant No.2 to alienate the property that permission can be granted. I do not find sufficient ground to allow the application. Therefore, the application filed by defendant No.2 for grant of permission sell the property is declined.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-4) of the trial Court, petitioner-defendant No.2 preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 6. As is evident from the impugned order that, the petitioner sought permission to alienate her share in the property in dispute, in pursuance of photo- stat copy of the agreement dated 21.02.2011 in favour of Gagandeep Kaur wife of Yadwinder Singh, whereas the agreement has been signed on behalf of one Raj Kumar son of Jagdish Chander. No connection has been shown between Gagandeep Kaur and Raj Kumar, who had signed the indicated agreement. To me, if petitioner-defendant No.2 is permitted to sell her share to a stranger, who is not a party to the suit, then it may give rise to multiplicity of the proceedings. 7. Moreover, the trial Court has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection, by way of impugned order. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of Civil Revision No.5647 of 2011 3 this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE