CR No.656 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.656 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.2.2009 Dev Kaur alias Baljinder Kaur ......Petitioner Versus Chhajju Khan and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. Through this revision petition defendant No.1 has challenged the order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the District Judge, Patiala whereby order dated 2.3.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nabha on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC declining the interim stay has been set aside and application for ad interim stay filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been accepted and the petitioner has been restrained from alienating the suit land in any manner during the pendency of the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.4.2005 filed by the plaintiff against him. Respondent-Chajju Khan filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 15.4.2005 which the petitioner alleges to be an act of forgery on the part of the plaintiff-respondent. Along with the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the petitioner from alienating the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial Court. However, on an appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the order dated CR No.656 of 2009 2 2.3.2006 passed by the trial Court rejecting his application for ad interim stay was set aside and the petitioner was restrained from alienating the suit land during the pendency of the suit vide order dated 18.5.2006. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendants in this Court on 19.1.2009 i.e. after a lapse of 2 years 8 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no prima facie case existing in favour of the plaintiff-respondent as the alleged agreement in question is an act of forgery and a criminal case stands registered against the respondent and further, the petitioner has also filed a civil suit challenging the aforesaid agreement in question and thus, no case is made out for grant of ad interim stay in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and the District Judge, Patiala has erred in law and failed to appreciate all these vital points in favour of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in this petition. Whether the agreement in question is an act of forgery or not, can only be decided after adducing evidence and simply because the petitioner has filed a criminal case against the plaintiff-respondent or has challenged the aforesaid agreement to sell in question by a separate suit, does not mean that the plaintiff-respondent has no prima facie case in his favour? Moreover, the petitioner has failed to give any explanation for filing this revision petition challenging the order dated 18.5.2006 after a delay of 2 years and 8 months. The petitioner has failed to state the status of the case pending before the trial Court. It is well settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts below in the case of grant of ad interim injunction unless an error of jurisdiction or a material irregularity has been committed by the Courts CR No.656 of 2009 3 below. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to find any such fault with the impugned order of the Lower Appellate Court. Dismissed. February 5, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE