RAVI KUMAR Vs. HAZARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed challenging the orders dated 16.10.2010 and 18.09.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no legal necessity before the father of the minor petitioner to alienate the property of the minor petitioner. He further argues that permission has been obtained by the father by playing fraud on the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that although an application seeking stay of the permission has been moved before the learned Additional District Judge, however, petitioner shall also move an application for recalling the order dated 29.01.2010 within ten days from today on the ground that father has played fraud on the Court in obtaining order impugned dated 29.01.2010. Learned counsel apprehends that meanwhile father will alienate the property making the recall application infructuous.

(3.) The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. The settled position of law is that any alienation made during the pendency of the lis, shall be hit by principle of lis pendens. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move a recall application before the learned Additional District Judge.