GULAB RAI Vs. ATAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the judgment dated 7. 4. 1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Hissar. By this judgment the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the order dated 23. 11. 1994 passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Hissar, vide which the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C. P. C. was allowed and the respondents/defendants were restrained from alienating the property mentioned in the plaint.

(2.) MR . Puri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is a clear finding of the learned trial Court that prima facie some of the property in question was ancestral one and as such the defendants had to be restrained from alienating the property mentioned in the plaint. He further submits that once an order passed by the learned trial Court is based on certain facts which are relevant to the case, the learned lower Appellate Court could not set aside the finding of the learned trial Court even if two opinions could be formed on the basis of those facts. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Court setting aside the order passed by the learned trial court was erroneous and was liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on three judgments of this Court in Smt. Sunita Jain and Ors. v. Chancier Kanta and Ors. , (1996-1)112 P. L. R. 293. Kamla K. Thapar v. Vinod K. Thapar, (1996-2)113 P. L. R 64. Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996-2)113 P. L. R. 487.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find that the interest of the plaintiff/petitioner is fully protected as any alienation of the property during the pendency of the present suit would be hit by doctrine of Lis pendense. It has been held so vide para 15 of the impugned order. In view of these facts I do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. .