Sudhir Mohan Puri Vs Yogesh Mohan and Another

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 15 Mar 2011 Civil Revision No. 1691 of 2011 (O and M) (2011) 03 P&H CK 0791
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Civil Revision No. 1691 of 2011 (O and M)

Hon'ble Bench

Sabina, J

Acts Referred
  • Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2

Judgement Text

Translate:

Sabina, J.@mdashPlaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was co-sharer/co-owner in joint possession of the suit property. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed. Vide order dated 22.5.2010, Civil Judge (Senior Division) restrained the Defendants from selling, alienating, mortgaging and changing the nature of the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share. The said order was set aside, in an appeal filed by Defendants, by Additional District Judge vide order dated 22.12.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the Plaintiff.

2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Defendants do not intend to sell the suit property, during the pendency of the suit.

3. In view of the statement, made by counsel for the Respondents, learned Counsel for Petitioner has submitted that he does not press this petition.

4. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More