IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6244 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.09.2010 Santokh Singh .... Petitioner Versus Jaswinder Kaur and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an application seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendants not to create third party interest during the pendency of the suit was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 4.3.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that against the dismissal of ad interim injunction application, an appeal was filed alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was wrongly dismissed by the Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned which was not condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that principle of lis pendence shall be applicable if any alienation is made or third party interest is created during the pendency of the suit irrespective of the fact that ad interim injunction application restraining the defendant not to sell the property was rejected. I do agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that any C.R. No. 6244 of 2010 2 alienation made during the pendency of the suit shall be hit by principle of lis pendence irrespective of the fact ad interim injunction application was rejected. In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise any jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 27.09.2010 JUDGE reena