Rohtas Singh vs Desh Raj And Others on 5 August, 2009

Civil Revision No. 5371 of 2008
                                                                        -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                              Civil Revision No. 5371 of 2008
                              Date of decision: 05.08.2009


Rohtas Singh
                                                              ....Petitioner

                    Versus


Desh Raj and others
                                                          ....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present: -Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.

          Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate,
          for the respondents.

                    *****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

5.8.2008 passed by the learned Courts below, on an application moved

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The petitioner herein entered into two agreements dated

17.2.2004 with the defendant/respondents. In one of the agreements,

sale consideration fixed was Rs. 79 lac per acre, out of which Rs.18.31

lac was said to have been paid as earnest money, whereas in the

second agreement total sale consideration was Rs.22.9 lac, out of

which petitioner claimed to have paid earnest money of Rs.4.59 lac.

Parties agreed to execute the sale deed on 16.8.2004. The

parties blamed each other for not executing the sale deed on the date

fixed.

The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on

4.1.2006 for enforcement of agreements to sell. The petitioner also
Civil Revision No. 5371 of 2008
-2-

moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, seeking injunction against the alienation of the property by

the defendant/respondents during the pendency of the suit.

The learned Courts below have declined the application.

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends,

that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the agreements to sell

have been admitted, and the dispute is only as to which of the party was

in fault in not executing the sale deed.

It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, that refusal of injunction is likely to result in multiplicity of

litigation, as third party interest would be created, which would prejudice

the petitioner.

On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by

the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law, that sale

during the pendency of the suit is hit by principle of lis pendens, and the

vendees would be bound by the decree, which may ultimately be

passed. It cannot be said, that the plaintiff/petitioner would suffer

irreparable loss, in case injunction was not granted.

No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by

the learned Courts below.

However in order to settle the equalities between the parties,

it is ordered that in case defendant/respondents alienate property, they

would incorporate covenant in the sale deed, stating therein that the

land is subject-matter of litigation in civil suit.

With above observation, revision is disposed off.

(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
August 05, 2009
R.S.