Civil Revision No. 2966 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2966 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.5.2010. Harpreet Singh ....Petitioner Versus Balwinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated April 7, 2010, whereby the learned District Judge, while setting aside the order of interim injunction passed in favour of petitioner has remanded the matter back to learned Trial Court to decide the issue regarding the suit being barred in law and also consider the application for interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner of the suit property on April 21, 2005. As the sale deed was not got registered on the date fixed, suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell was filed on July 27, 2005 along with an application for interim injunction. In that, the respondent was restrained from alienating the suit property. As during the pendency of earlier suit the respondent sought to raise construction on the suit property, another suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from raising construction on the suit land, in which trial Court granted interim injunction. However, in appeal by the respondent, learned lower Appellate Court while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent vacated the interim injunction prima-facie opining that the suit in question filed by petitioner for permanent injunction was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as earlier suit filed by the petitioner for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell was already pending. Submission is that cause of action in both the suits is altogether different. In case, during the pendency of suit, the respondent raised construction on the suit property that would change the nature thereof and will prejudice the case of the petitioner/plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order at this stage, considering the fact that the matter has merely been remanded by the learned Lower Appellate Court to the trial Court for fresh consideration on the application for interim injunction and also on preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding maintainability Civil Revision No. 2966 of 2010 2 of the suit. It is not in dispute that there is stay of alienation of property passed in favour of petitioner in another suit filed by him seeking possession of the property on the basis of agreement to sell. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 6.5.2010. JUDGE Reema