JUDGMENT Jaswant Singh, J.:-Petitioner-plaintiff, by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants was allowed and the order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned trial Court granting ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff was set aside and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession on the ground that he was a co-owner in joint possession of about 7 kanals 3 marlas of land in Village Sangoha, as described in the plaint. The case set up by the petitioner-plaintiff was that he used to give the suit land on lease to Smt. Anto Devi, mother of defendants 1 and 2 and in the year 1990 he was in urgent need of money and therefore, desirous of mortgaging the land instead of giving it on lease to Smt. Anto Devi. It was further alleged that Smt. Anto Devi instead of creating a mortgage fraudulently obtained a civil court decree dated 14.1.1990 in Civil Suit No.12/1990, against the petitioner-plaintiff, which has also been challenged in the present suit. 3. Petitioner-plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking ad interim injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the suit land. 4. The suit as well as ad interim injunction application were contested by respondents-defendants alleging that the petitioner-plaintiff had suffered a consent decree in favour of father of respondents-defendants, which had been passed with the consent and knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) granted ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land. 6. Aggrieved against the same, respondents-defendants filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court. 7. Learned lower appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P/2) allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned trial Court granting ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved against the same, respondents-defendants filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court. 7. Learned lower appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 23.9.2008 (Annexure P/2) allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned trial Court granting ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. While accepting the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants, it was found by the learned lower appellate Court that the decree dated 14.1.1990 had been challenged by the petitioner-plaintiff after a lapse of 15 years and it was not explained in the plaint as to when the petitioner-plaintiff came to know about the alleged fraud played upon him. It was further found that signatures on the statement on the basis of which consent decree was passed were not denied. The learned lower appellate Court rejected the stand of the petitioner-plaintiff that the consent decree had been obtained in the garb of executing a mortgage deed, on the ground that petitioner had appeared in the Court alongwith his counsel, made a statement in the Court and suffered a consent decree, therefore, there existed no prima facie case in his favour. 8. It was further observed by the learned lower appellate Court that merely because the respondents-defendants had not effected any alienation for the last more than 15 years, it could not be said that balance of convenience had tilted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. It was also found that by restraining respondents-defendants from alienating the suit land would rather amount to irreparable loss and injury to them and in any case the principle of lis pendens would be applicable. Accordingly, the order dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the ad interim injunction application of the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed. However, it was made clear that in the document of alienation, if any, the vendor shall specifically incorporate the fact of pendency of the present suit and that the alienee/vendee shall be bound by the decision in the suit. 9. However, it was made clear that in the document of alienation, if any, the vendor shall specifically incorporate the fact of pendency of the present suit and that the alienee/vendee shall be bound by the decision in the suit. 9. After hearing the leaned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and perusing the impugned order, in my opinion, the reasoning adopted by the learned lower appellate Court in declining the grant of ad interim injunction in favour of petitioner-plaintiff is correct and the impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity, warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the present revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. ------------------