CR-2800-2023 (O&M)

Page 1 of 3

106

2023:PHHC: 067611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-2800-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision:05.05.2023

KUNAL BAJAJ AND ANOTHER

…Petitioners

VS

RASHMI DEVI AND OTHERS

…Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate,

For the petitioners.

****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Revision petition is directed against order dated 02.12.2019

(Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pathankot

whereby application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151CPC

filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff was partly allowed and petitioners/

defendants No.1 and 2 were restrained from alienating the suit property,

while setting aside order dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, whereby the injunction application

filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 was dismissed.

2.

Succinct facts first.

2.1.

Respondent No.1 is real sister of petitioner No.1, sister-in-law

of petitioner No.2 and daughter of respondent No.2.

2.2.

Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit (Annexure P-1) for

declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of shop at

Mission Road, Pathankot, Godown, residential house, Kothi, plots, shop and

vehicle (Innova). Petitioners filed a written statement (Annexure P-2).

Thereafter, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an amended plaint (Annexure

VANDANA

2023.05.10 17:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2800-2023 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3

P-3). Respondent No.1 along with suit for declaration and permanent

injunction filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with

Section 151 CPC. The said application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Pathankot vide order dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-5).

Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed an appeal, which was partly allowed and

petitioners were restrained from alienating the suit property vide impugned

order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-6).

3.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that plaintiff/

respondent No.1 has concealed the fact that properties in dispute had been

purchased by petitioner/defendant No.2 Pallavi vide different sale deeds and

as such, these properties were never owned by late Sh. Vijay Kumar Bajaj.

He would further argue that learned First Appellate Court erred in

restraining petitioners from alienating the entire suit property which is not

the part and parcel of the properties vested with deceased Vijay Kumar

Bajaj.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the

case file.

5.

Order assailed herein is premised inter alia on the following

reasoning:

“From the submission of learned counsel for the

parties and from perusal of the file, it is clear that Rashmi Devi

filed a suit against Kunal Bajaj and others for declaration

claiming that Vijay Kumar father of the plaintiff and who was

owner of the property. He never executed any Will in favour of

the defendants. On the other hand the case of the

respondents/defendants is that Vijay Kumar executed a valid

Will in favour of the defendants and plaintiff was having

knowledge of the said Will. One party is denying the Will

whereas the other party alleged the execution of the Will. The

evidence is yet to be recorded to prove or disprove the Will. In

such a situation the property must be kept preserved and

protected. If defendants succeed to alienate the property, the

appellant/plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the

VANDANA

2023.05.10 17:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-2800-2023 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3

appeal is partly allowed and defendants are restrained from

alienating the suit property. With these observations and the

findings, the appeal is partly allowed. However, it is made clear

that this order shall have no bearing u