S.P.GOYAL, J.

1. The appellant instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the house in dispute in any manner alleging that the latter had no right to alienate the same. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and against its judgement, he went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. Along with the appeal, he also moved an application under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2, Civil P.C. for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the house in dispute pending appeal which was rejected vide order dt. Feb. 25, 1985. This second appeal has been filed to challenge that order.

2. When the appeal came up for hearing before me in single Bench at the motion stage reliance was placed on a decision of Harbans Singh, C.J. in Shiv Kumar Mool Chand Arora V/s. Mool Chand Jaswant Ram Arora, AIR 1972 Punj and Har 147, for the proposition that ad interim injunction can be granted to prevent the proposed alienation which is not for the benefit of the family or for any legal necessity. As I doubted the correctness of this decision, the appeal was admitted to a Division Bench. This is how we are seized of this matter.

3. It wa