IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3282 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : May 30, 2009 Jagdish Kumar and others Petitioners Versus K.L. Handa and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Challenge made in this petition is to the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by District Judge, Patiala accepting the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents against the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Rajpura dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The reliance is placed on the agreement dated 23.5.2006 executed between the parties. As per agreement, the sale was to be effected on 22.9.2006 but on the said date the sale deed could not be executed, however, the date was extended to 30.10.2006. Despite the fact that the plaintiff-respondents put in appearance before Sub Registrar on the stipulated date, the defendant-petitioners did not come forward to execute the sale deed after making payment of the sale price, ultimately the suit for specific performance was filed. Admittedly, agreement dated 23.5.2006 came into existence between the parties and the sale deed could not be executed on the date fixed. However, the time was not an essence of C.R. No. 3282 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the contract. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since in view of the principles as laid down under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, temporary injunction could not be granted. While disagreeing with the aforesaid argument, it is observed that the petitioners paid a substantial sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of the total sum of Rs. 18,51,000/- to the respondents. Both the Sections i.e. 53 of the transfer of property Act and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC have quite different field and scope. Section 57 of the Act deals with the principles of lis pendens whereas Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC comes into operation before the sale is effected and it has been brought over the statute book to preserve the property in order to avoid alienation, wastage and further damage to the property so that if the rights as claimed by the party filing the suit are established, the property could be returned safe to him. In the present case, if the property changes hands by way of any alienation then the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. As such in order to avoid further complications and multiplicity of suits, the appellate Court appears to have taken a right view which can not be interfered with by this Court at revisional stage. Dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within six months. (A.N.JINDAL) 30.05.2009 JUDGE reena