Civil Revision No. 611 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 611 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.05.2009. Harbhajan Singh Petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Deol,Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 4 Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the respondents No.5 to 7 ***** S.D.ANAND, J. In an affirmative coherence, the learned Trial Court and also the learned Ist Appellate Court ordered the restraint of the defendant-petitioner from interferring in the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents on the land in sut. A counter claim filed by the defendant-petitioner was negatived. Insofar as the controversy about adinterim stay is concerned, it is common ground presently that the land in suit (to which the averments made by the plaintiffs- respondents in the plaint and also the allegations made by the defendant-petitioner in the counter claim were relateable) has since been sold off by the defendant-petitioner. It is, thus, apparent that the defendant-petitioner has parted with the possessory and proprietary title of the land in suit in favour of a third party which Civil Revision No. 611 of 2009 -2- **** (party) is yet to be impleaded as a party therein. Neither the subsequent vendee has applied for impleadment as a party nor the the plaintiffs-respondents have taken any step to implead the subsequent vendee. Be that as it may, it is apparent that the defendant- petitioner has ceased to have any proprietary or possessory interest in the property in suit. In that view of things, this petition at his instance becomes incompetent. The petition shall stand allowed in the light of the above observations made by this Court. However, it is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court inappropriately ordered the dismissal of counter claim filed by the defendant-petitioner. By the very nature of things, the learned Trial Court was dealing with only adinterim stay plea and there was no occasion for it to accept or negative the counter claim. That part of the order shall not continue to be operative and the counter claim shall subsist for adjudication. May 05, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge