C.R.No.5130 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.5130 of 2009
Date of Decision : 23.11.2009
Parshotam Dass and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Jangir Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate,
for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated
21.8.2009, whereby the defendant-petitioners were restrained from
running of the Rice Sheller.
The petitioners are purchasers of land measuring 16 Kanals
from Gurdev Singh vide sale deed dated 22.5.2008. On the aforesaid
date, the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for specific performance of the
agreement to sell dated 26.12.1987 was pending before the competent
Court. The suit for specific performance was decreed by the learned trial
Court on 6.4.1992. The said judgment and decree was affirmed by the
learned first Appellate Court on 27.3.1995. The said decree has been
affirmed in second appeal by this Court on 4.9.2009 in RSA No.1875 of
1995. It has been held that the sale in favour of the present petitioners is
subject to doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, does not confer any title
in their favour.
C.R.No.5130 of 2009 2
The plaintiff-respondents have initially filed a suit for
permanent injunction to seek restraint order against the defendants from
raising any construction over the land in dispute. However, the
defendant-petitioners have raised construction before the grant of
injunction, therefore, the plaintiff-respondents filed another application
for claiming ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners
from running of the Rice Sheller. The learned trial Court dismissed the
said application, but the learned first Appellate Court allowed the same.
It is the said order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present
revision petition.
The only ground to challenge the order passed by the learned
first Appellate Court is that the relief claimed in the ad interim injunction
application is not the relief claimed in the main suit, therefore, the
plaintiffs cannot be granted any ad interim injunction as ordered by the
learned first Appellate Court.
The said argument is not tenable. The petitioners are transferee
pendente lite. Such transfer cannot confer any right in favour of the
petitioners. The suit for specific performance of the plaintiff-respondents
has been decreed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have a right to protect their
interest. The defendant-petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the
ad interim injunction granted by the learned first Appellate Court for the
reason that the transfer in their favour has been found to be hit by
doctrine of lis pendens.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity
in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may
warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition.
C.R.No.5130 of 2009 3
Learned counsel for the petitioners has then argued that since
the paddy of Markfed is lying stocked in the Rice Sheller for shelling.
The non-performance of such contract will create further financial burden
on the petitioners, therefore, they should be allowed to run the Rice
Sheller till 31.12.2009 to meet out their contractual obligations.
Mr. S.C.Pathela, learned counsel for the respondents has no
objection for the said limited relief.
In view of the said fact, though the present revision petition is
dismissed, but the petitioners are permitted to use the Rice Sheller till
31.12.2009 only for the purposes of clearing the available stock. In no
case, the petitioners shall run the Rice Sheller after 31.12.2009.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
23.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE