- (1.) This revision has arisen out of the order dated 25.6.2011 (Annexure P.5) passed by the learned Vacation Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Chandigarh vide which ex parte injunction as asked in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein referred as the Code) was not granted to the petitioner.
(2.) The dispute relates to house No.506 Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, which according to the petitioner, has been divided into three portions vide family settlement dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure P.1) whereby portion A was given to the defendant/petitioner and portion B and C were given to plaintiff/respondents No.1 and 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit in the year 2009 but an application was filed by the petitioner during vacation of June, 2011 against the respondents not to alienate their shares in the property. Vide impugned order (Annexure P.5), the court did not grant ex parte injunction and observed: that the plaintiff herself has stated that as per family settlement property bearing No.506, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh was divided into three portions. Portion A was given to Bharatpal Singh present petitioner and portions B and C were given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. All the co-owners are exclusively occupying their portions as per partition. Besides declining the application on the aforesaid grounds, the trial court declined to grant ex parte injunction on other ground that the other party is required to be heard before granting any injunction. Therefore, notice was issued to the other party for 28.6.2011 by the trial court. The court also summoned the main file from the concerned court. Court also ordered to issue dasti summons for service upon the respondents. Consequently, the file was sent to Shri Gurpartap Singh, learned Vacation Judge on the date fixed. Applicant was also directed to appear before the said Court on the date fixed. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid impugned order, present revision petition has been filed.
(3.) At the motion stage the petitioner Bharat Pal Singh now represented by legal representatives while urging that as per memo of settlement they had pre-emptory right to purchase the property and the right of pre-emption has been recognized by Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and prayed for injunction. Thus, the court vide order dated 1.7.2011 restrained the respondents not to hand over any part of the premises to the vendee. Obviously, by that time the sale deed has been executed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and possession was still to be handed over. Now learned senior counsel for the petitioner, without urging further with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition and without considering if Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable to the facts of the present case, has urged that Section 22 of the Act was not pressed into service by the petitioner at that time, has requested that the trial court could be directed to decide the application within time frame in order to avoid further controversy between the parties.;