C.R. 2610 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 2610 of 2011 Date of decision:21.4.2011 Trilok Chand Taneja and anr Petitioner vs. Bindia Rai & Anr Respondent Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners are defendants No. 2 and 3 in a suit filed by plaintiff- respondent No.1 Bindia Rai for permanent injunction restraining her mother respondent No.2 and the petitioners from forcibly dispossessing her from the house in dispute. It is contended by the defendant-petitioners that they had purchased the property from defendant No.1, the mother of plaintiff- respondent No.1. In order to deprive the defendant- petitioners of the fruits of the sale deed, their vendor Soni Rai got the suit filed by her daughter by put her in possession. The suit has been pending for the last four years as it is being delayed for one reason or another. The application for interim injunction, filed by the plaintiff- respondent, has also been dismissed uptill High Court. Through the instant petition, interim order dated 27.1.2011 has been challenged by virtue of which an application filed by defendant- petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC stands dismissed. The petitioners had filed the said application on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and that the cause of action, on the basis of which the plaint has been filed, does not exist as the C.R. 2610 of 2011 2 property had not been, in any manner, ancestral in the hands of the seller. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I am of the opinion that the defendant- petitioners have already taken up the plea in the written statement that the suit is bad their being no cause of action. Whether the property is ancestral in the hands of the vendor of the petitioners is a question of fact, which is to be decided on the basis of the material produced. The trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners. No ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the impugned interim order passed by the trial court is made out. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioners that on account of delay being caused, a great prejudice is being suffered by the petitioner . It will always be open to the petitioners to make a request to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the case by giving short dates. In case any such request is made, the trial court will accede to the request and try to dispose of the case within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Disposed of. April 21 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE