C.R.No.43 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.43 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.1.2008 Jarnail Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Surjit Singh and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the respondents ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is, to the order dated 2.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nabha, declining to grant an injunction regarding alienation of property, as also an order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala,dismissing the appeal, filed by the petitioner. The only argument urged in support of the revision petition is, that in case the respondents alienate the property in dispute, the petitioner's rights would be seriously impaired and any relief that may be granted to the petitioner, would be rendered infructuous/illusory. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the alleged documents of partition, as also the mutation entered thereon, on the grounds of fraud and coercion. Consequently, the learned Courts below should have protected the petitioner's right vis-a-vis the suit property. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that by C.R.No.43 of 2007 2 invoking the principle of lis-pendens, the learned trial Court has protected the petitioner's rights and, therefore, the petitioner cannot pray for and be granted an injunction, to restrain the respondents, from alienating the property. It is further submitted that any such order, would be an unfair and illegal restraint upon the respondents right, to deal with their property in any manner,they deem appropriate. The partition deed has been signed by the petitioner, as also by the other co-sharers and was duly entered in the revenue record by way of mutation. It is, therefore, asserted that even on merits, the petitioner has no case, the present petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is true that the learned trial Court, while dismissing the application for grant of an injunction, has invoked the principle of lis- pendens and held that alienation, if any, shall be subject to the final decision of the case. Though, the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that in order to ensure compliance of the aforementioned directions, the impugned orders be modified to the extent that in case the respondents desire to alienate the suit land, they should be directed to inform the prospective vendee of the pendency of the civil suit. Consequently, in case, the respondents propose to alienate the property in dispute, they shall inform the prospective vendee of the pendency of the civil suit and ensure that such an averment appears in the agreement to sell and or the sale deed eventually executed. With the aforementioned modification in the impugned orders, C.R.No.43 of 2007 3 the present petition is disposed of accordingly. 11.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE