COCP No. 4 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 4 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2010 Suneel Sardana .....Petitioner Versus Savita Jain and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Pradeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri J.K. Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 9 & 12. Shri R.K. Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Anand Chhibbar, Advocate, for respondent No.10. Shri Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for respondent No.13. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition alleging that the respondents have failed to comply with the order passed by this Court on 27.2.2001 as in the sale deed executed, the respondents have not recited the factum of pendency of the suit. The order passed by this court on 27.2.2001 reads as under:- [ 1] COCP No. 4 of 2008 (O&M) “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this revision is dismissed with the direction to the trial Court to conclude the evidence of the plaintiff within three months and the entire suit shall be disposed of within one year. It is further observed that if the respondent i.e. May Field Gardens (P) Ltd., or M/s Chevron Exports (P) Ltd., or M/s Ajay Impex (P) Ltd., makes any alienation of the property, it shall make a recital in the sale deed that the suit is pending in the trial Court.” It is asserted by the petitioner that the respondents have executed sale deeds in December, 2005 and January, 2006. Therefore, such sale deeds have been executed in violation of the order passed by this Court. Thus, the respondents have committed contempt of Court, punishable under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. From the additional affidavit dated 10.12.2010 filed by the petitioner, it transpires that earlier the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction on or about 13.1.1997. Subsequently, the suit was amended and the petitioner claimed a declaration in respect of the title over the property in dispute and also sought possession in case a finding is returned that the petitioner (plaintiff) is not in possession of the suit property. It is stated in the affidavit that the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and by the first Appellate Court. Regular Second Appeal No. 482 of 2010 is pending before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported Gurdeep Singh and others v. Jeet Singh and others (Civil Revision No. 1929 of 2009 decided on 22.4.2010), in support of the argument that even if the suit has been dismissed, the interim order directing the respondents to recite the factum of the pendency of the suit in the trial Court, will not absolve the respondents from the consequences of the violation of the ad-interim order passed. As per the facts on record, the respondents have executed sale deeds during the pendency of the suit. Such sales suffer from doctrine of lis-pendense and the vendees will not get any better title [ 2] COCP No. 4 of 2008 (O&M) than what their vendees were having at the time of such sale. Therefore, the rights of the petitioner are not affected in any manner. The petitioner has not suffered any prejudice on account of sales by the respondents during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, I do not find any justification to continue with the present contempt petition. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 13-12-2010 ds [ 3]