In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 6740 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.1.2009 Vineet Tyagi and others ..... Petitioners vs Harish Kumar Luthra and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the learned Courts below whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed suit challenging the sale of property by their parents and also seeking restraint against them from alienating the property which was left over with them. The claim was made with the allegations that the property was a joint Hindu coparcenary property and the parents did not have any right to alienate the same. Both the courts, prima facie, did not find merits in the submission of the petitioners and not granted injunction seeking restraint against the transferees/vendees of the property for further alienating the suit property and respondents no. 2 to 7 from selling the remaining property. As far as sale of property by the transferees/vendees during the pendency of the challenge to the sale-deed in their favour is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact that principles of lis pendens as contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are applicable. In so far as the restraint against defendants no. 2 to 7 from alienating the property owned by them is concerned, even though it is joint Hindu coparcenary Property, prima- facie, this court is of the view that no injunction can be granted for disposal of the property as it is only that the members of the joint Hindu family can challenge the same after its disposal. Both the courts below have discussed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners threadbare in detailed order passed which is impugned before this court. The reasoning given therein that the petitioners had not been able to make out a prima facie case cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 20.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge