Civil Revision No.2364 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2364 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2011 M/s Dev Builders and Colonizers Private Ltd. ......petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction was filed. The trial Court vide order dated 8.4.2009 dismissed the application for temporary injunction. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the said order was upheld by Additional District Judge vide order dated 9.11.2010. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Civil Revision No.2364 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Courts below had erred in declining the relief of temporary injunction to the plaintiff. In case the suit property is alienating during the pendency of the suit, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and the plaintiff shall suffer an irreparable loss. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass 2005 (1) Civil Court Cases 0430, wherein, in para 9, it was held as under:- “Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and untill a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such case of irreparable loss is made out except contending that the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the respondent should be permitted to put the scheduled property to better use. We do not think in the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified in permitting the respondent to change the nature of property by putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of the property, whatever may be the condition on which the same is done. In the event of the appellant’s claim being found baseless ultimately, it is always open to the Civil Revision No.2364 of 2011 (O&M) 3 respondent to claim damages or, in an appropriate case, the court may itself award damages for the loss suffered, if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.1.2005. Learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has observed that prima facie it could not be decided as to what was the rate agreed between the parties qua the suit property at the time of execution of the agreement. At this stage, it could not be commented whether the affidavits given by Harjit Singh and Harpreet Singh were genuine . The parties had agreed to execute the sale deed on 28.2.2006, whereas, a notice was served by the plaintiff on the respondents on 22.11.2008 for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff had remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on 1.12.2008 with the balance sale consideration. However, no material was placed on record qua the change of date of execution of the sale deed. In these circumstances, the application for temporary injunction was liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the principle of lis pendence will be applicable. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Civil Revision No.2364 of 2011 (O&M) 4 petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff had failed to establish that he had a prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 07, 2011 anita