C.R. No. 392 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 392 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.1.2011 Baldev Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Harbahajan Singh and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. S.K. Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners had filed a suit for specific performance for agreement to sell dated 11.4.1996, executed by Harbhajan Singh in their favour. The suit, filed by the petitioners, was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2006. The sale-deed, executed by Harbhajan Singh in favour of respondents No.3 to 6, was held to be illegal and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff. The appeal, filed by the defendants, was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.7.2008. Vide the impugned order the execution application, filed by the petitioners, has been stayed till the decision of the appeal preferred by JDs No. 3 to 6 in this Court. Hence, the present appeal by the decree-holders. C.R. No. 392 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were ready to incur the expenses and get the sale deed executed in their favour. The regular second appeal filed by Harbhajan Singh has been dismissed by this Court. The petitioners were not concerned with the appeal filed by JDs No. 3 to 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Although, the regular second appeal, filed by Harbhajan Singh, has been dismissed by this Court, but the regular second appeal, filed by JDs No. 3 to 6 is pending in this Court and, admittedly, in the said appeal possession of the JDs No. 3 to 6 had been protected. In these circumstances, at this stage it would be in the interest of justice to stay the execution application to await the decision in RSA No.389 of 2009, filed by JDs No. 3 to 6. As per the impugned order, the petitioners would be at liberty to revive the execution application after the regular second appeal, filed by JDs No. 3 to 6, is decided. No ground for interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2011 Anand