CR No.4792 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4792 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9 - 8 - 2011 Jarnail Singh ....Petitioner v. Parmodh Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Parmodh Kumar – respondent No.1 had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.2.1995 executed by defendant No.1 in his favour calling upon him to execute the sale deed in his favour qua the suit land, detail and description of which has been given in the head note of the plaint. It was pleaded in the suit that Madan Lal-defendant No.1 had sold the property to Smt.Bhajno - defendant No.2 , who in turn had sold the same to Jarnail Singh – defendant No.3, petitioner before this Court. The trial Court while deciding the application for ad-interim injunction, passed order, Annexure P3, on 29.11.2006 and held that in case Jarnail Singh petitioner-defendant No.3 to the suit sells the property, the subsequent vendee will not step into his shoes, therefore, if defendant No.3 CR No.4792 of 2011 [2] has to sell the suit property, prior permission of the Court is required so that it may not add to multiplicity of the litigation. Order Annexure P3 was passed on 29.11.2006. During the pendency of the suit, present petitioner- defendant No.3 to the suit, filed an application that in terms of order dated 29.11.2006, permission be granted to him to sell the suit property. The application for grant of permission was rejected by the trial Court on 2.8.2010. While rejecting the application, the Court held that parties to the suit should produce their evidence at the earliest and three effective opportunities will be granted to both the parties. The Court further held that plaintiff has availed one opportunity and only two opportunities be given to him and thereafter three opportunities be granted to the defendants. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that this order was passed on 2.8.2010 and in the present revision petition this order has been assailed that trial Court ought to have granted the permission. I am not inclined to accept the prayer made by the present petitioner on the following grounds:- (a) No reason has been given by the petitioner that as to why he has approached this Court after one year of the passing of the impugned order. (b) Regarding the stage and status of the suit, it has been only submitted that case is still at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. Who got adjournments, nothing has been stated. The orders passed by the trial Court on various dates have been withheld from this Court. Taking totality of circumstances and conduct of the petitioner into consideration, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed CR No.4792 of 2011 [3] to conclude and decide the proceedings arising out of the suit in terms of order dated 2.8.2010, Annexure P4, within a period of nine months. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 9, 2011. JUDGE RC