Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Narinder Pal Singh plaintiff-petitioner, challenging the order dated June 2, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahr and the order dated August 25, 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr. By the aforesaid orders, the prayer made by the plaintiff/petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been declined. 2. Udham Singh deceased was father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4. He held the entire land as a co-parcenar. It is asserted by the plaintiff that the property being co-parcenary and Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of Udham Singh, he was not entitled to alienate the same. Udham Singh had suffered three decrees in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein), but the same are bad and as such not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4. The plaintiff then asserts that the defendants have no right to alienate the suit property and to dispossess the plaintiff. Accordingly in the main suit for declaration a prayer for interim injunction was also made. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. An objection was taken that an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff had been got dismissed as withdrawn. In the said suit, the plaintiff had claimed a family settlement against his father with regard to the land measuring 23 kanals 3 marlas. Subsequently, since the sale deed of the said land had been got executed by him from his father, therefore, the suit was got dismissed as withdrawn. It is then claimed by the defendants that the land in suit was neither the co-parcenary proper nor it was Joint Hindu Family property. Another objection raised was that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands as he has not disclosed that earlier also the suit was filed and as such is not entitled to the discretionary relief as claimed by him. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the material available on record, held that the plaintiff had failed to show any prima facie case in his favour. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the material available on record, held that the plaintiff had failed to show any prima facie case in his favour. It was then observed that Udham Singh deceased had five sons, whereas he suffered three consent decrees in favour of his three sons 1/5th share each had also been transferred way of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 4. It was also observed that in fact the said sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was without any consideration and as such the claim of the plaintiff from the total property of Udham Singh stood satisfied. It was further observed that the plaintiff had failed to disclose about filing of the earlier suit and as such had not come to the court with clean chest. He had also not disclosed about the factum of the sale by Udham Singh in his favour. The learned trial Court held that the doctrine of lis pendense applies and as per the provisions of Section, 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff could not claim any irreparable loss. With these observations the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. 5. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned district Judge. The learned first Appellate Court after reconsidering the entire material on record made similar observations as were made by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveators/respondents at length. 7. At the outset, it may be noticed that the factors as noticed by the learned Courts below with regard to three consent decrees by Udham Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 and the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the suit earlier filed by the plaintiffs was similar to the suits filed by defendants No. 1 to 3. However, since a sale deed with regard to the said suit property was executed by Udham Singh in favour of the plaintiff and no sale consideration was made before the Sub registrar, thus apparently the said sale deed was also by way of a gratuitous transfer by Udham Singh in favour of the plaintiff. However, since a sale deed with regard to the said suit property was executed by Udham Singh in favour of the plaintiff and no sale consideration was made before the Sub registrar, thus apparently the said sale deed was also by way of a gratuitous transfer by Udham Singh in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the said suit was never disclosed by the plaintiff in his plaintiff. In my view the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct to challenge the alienation. 8. Even otherwise, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on September 7, 2001. The decrees in question by Udham Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 were of the year 1995-96. It is apparent that the suit filed by the plaintiff prima facie appears to be barred by limitation with regard to challenge of the said decrees. 9. In any case, any alienation made by the defendants during pendency of the suit would of course be covered by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act after final decision of the suit. 10. In my view, the judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any apparent illegality or infirmity. No error of jurisdiction has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Consequently the present revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove would not influence the merits of the case in any manner before the trial Court.