IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.793 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 08.02.2008 Hukam Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate vs. Rai Singh & others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioners are aggrieved at the order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari whereby their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed as well as against the order dated 24.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Rewari upholding the aforementioned order. The facts may be noticed briefly. Respondent No.1-the contesting defendant, entered into an agreement to sell in the year 1993 with Hari Singh and Singh Ram in terms whereof the latter agreed to sell the subject land to respondent No.1. The above-stated vendor(s), however, later on resiled from the agreement which prompted respondent No.1 to file a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, in the year 1994. The said suit No.171 of C.R. No.793 of 2008 -2- 1994 was decreed by the Civil court on 26.2.2002. Concededly, the said judgment has attained finality. Meanwhile, the petitioners, during the pendency of the above- stated suit, purchased the subject property from Hari Singh and Singh Ram firstly in the year 1999 and thereafter on 9.2.2005. Pursuant to the execution proceedings, a sale deed has been executed in favour of respondent No.1-decree holder on 18.1.2006. The petitioners have thereafter filed the present suit for declaration and for consequential relief that they are the bona fide purchasers of the subject property for consideration and that respondent No.1-decree holder be restrained from taking possession thereof. Both the Courts below have observed and rightly so that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and since the respondent No.1-the decree holder, is seeking possession of the suit property in execution of a lawful decree passed by the Competent Court, no case to grant ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners is made out. No interference in the prima facie concurrent findings of the Courts below is called for. Dismissed. February 08, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE