JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2000 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur whereby on the appeal filed by defendant the order of trial court dated 23.7.99 passed on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has been set aside. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale of land by his father Moji Ram to respondent No. 1 was illegal. The petitioner had challenged the sale deed with the application for interim injunction to the effect that the property in question, even though has been sold by alleged sale deed, be not interfered with by the vendee. The trial court had granted interim injunction, which order has been set aside by the lower appellate court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he being coparcener can always challenge the alienation made by his father. Be it may so, but no prima facie case for granting interim injunction against the vendee is made out only for the reason that a suit for declaration had been filed by son against the sale of property by his father. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the revision petition. 5. With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed in illimini.Revision dismissed. *******