IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (127)

Date of Decision:-17.02.2026 ASHOK … Petitioner Versus KAMLA AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Aakash Juneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, to assail the order dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), seeking grant of temporary injunction, was dismissed.

1.1. The petitioner further calls in question the order dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order of the learned Civil Judge was also dismissed, thereby affirming the refusal to grant interim relief.

2. The petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking a decree of declaration, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction and separate possession by way of partition. Alongside the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents, including Mukesh Bansal, from alienating the suit property or raising any construction thereon.

2.1. The case set up in the plaint is that Manohar Lal, father of plaintiff and defendant No.2 and husband of defendant No.1, died in the year 2015. The petitioner claims to be the son of defendant No.1 and the real brother of defendant No.2. It is averred that defendant No.1 was the owner of the house in question, fully detailed and described in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, and that Manohar Lal and defendant No.1 had five children.

2.2. It is further pleaded that on 16.02.2019, defendant No.1 initiated proceedings against the petitioner and his wife under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking their eviction from the suit property on allegations which, according to the petitioner, were false and baseless. The said petition was dismissed, and the appeal preferred thereagainst also met the same fate. Thereafter, the matter was amicably resolved between the parties, culminating in a family settlement dated 14.02.2021, whereby the petitioner and defendant No.2 were allegedly allotted ½ share each in the suit property.

2.3. The petitioner has alleged that defendant No.1 is under the undue influence of defendant No.2 and that concerted efforts are being made to alienate the petitioner’s share in the suit property and to dispossess him therefrom. It is further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 executed a sale deed dated 16.06.2021 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 in respect of the suit property measuring 140 square yards. According to the petitioner, defendant No.1 had no lawful authority to execute the said sale deed, and the same is liable to be declared illegal, null and void, and not binding upon his rights.

3. It has further been pleaded that defendant Nos.3 and 4, in continuation of the alleged unlawful transactions, subsequently alienated an area measuring 70 square yards out of the suit property in favour of defendant No.5 by way of sale deed dated 14.01.2022. On the strength of these assertions, the petitioner sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents–defendants from further alienating any portion of the suit property and from raising any construction thereon during the pendency of the suit.

3.1. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the material placed on record, the learned Civil Judge partly allowed the application for interim relief. The defendants were restrained from alienating any area beyond 140 square yards, and were further restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from an area measuring 72 square yards, e