110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.01.2026 RASWINDER SINGH ...Petitioner VERSUS RAJVIR KAUR AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mansa vide which the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC moved by the plaintiff/respondent has been allowed while setting aside the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mansa in civil suit file No.100 dated 08.08.2020 titled “Rajvir Kaur Vs. Raswinder Singh and Others” vide which application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that one Draiver Singh was owner in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 are his daughters while defendant No.2 is the wife of deceased Draiver Singh. Defendant No.1 is the son of defendant No.3 i.e. maternal grandson of Draiver Singh. It has been alleged that defendant No.1 by way of fraud and fabrication got executed an adoption deed dated 10.05.2016 bearing registration No.16 dated 13.05.2016 from Draiver Singh and defendant No.2 and under the garb of the same, defendant No.2 executed a forged and fabricated transfer deed dated 04.10.2016 in favour of defendant No.1. It is alleged that the transfer deed and consequent mutation are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Draiver Singh has died on 02.09.2017 and plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5 being his legal heirs have become owners in possession of the suit property left behind by Draiver Singh. Defendant No.1 is bent upon to alienate the same without any right, title or interest and in case, he will succeed in doing so, plaintiff shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury. By way of present suit, a declaration was sought that the adoption deed and subsequent transfer deed are illegal, null and void. By way of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, it had been prayed that defendant No.1 be restrained from alienating the suit property till decision of the suit.

3. Defendants No.1 to 4 in their written statement have refuted the contents of the plaint to be wrong and have taken a plea that defendant No.1 was adopted by the deceased and his wife during his lifetime out of their own sweet will and dismissal of the application was sought.

4. Learned trial Court dismissed the application with the observations that all the documents executed by deceased Draiver Singh during his lifetime including adoption deed and Will are registered documents and merely because plaintiff has challenged the same is no ground to grant injunction as prayed for. It was held that no prima facie case exists in favour of plaintiff and the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff shall not suffer any irreparable loss and injury in case the injunction is not granted.

5. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff filed a civil miscellaneous appeal, which has been allowed by the learned District Judge, Mansa vide order dated 11.09.2025 and the same has been challenged by way of the present revision.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the First Appellate Court has reversed the well-reasoned findings of the trial Court without assigning any cogent reasons. Learned counsel further contended that the Appellate Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the refusal or grant of temporary injunction by the trial Court and that such interference is permissible only if the order passed by the trial Court is absolutely perverse or illegal. The Appellate Court should be slow in upsetting/varying the findings of the trial Court on an order passed on the application under Order 39