IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1490 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 Arif Beg ....Petitioner Versus Puran Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Y.D. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the learned Courts below whereby the application filed by the petitioner for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC during the pendency of the suit was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.1.1992 with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction on May 9, 2008 against the respondents No.1 to 4. It was sought to be claimed in the suit that at the time of entering into the agreement to sell the possession of the property in dispute was delivered to the petitioner and the time for execution of sale deed was extended from time to time and finally respondents No.1 to 4 having refused to execute the sale deed, the suit was filed. As the petitioner is in possession of the property the same was required to be protected during the pendency of the suit. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned orders passed, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The facts are not so simple as are sought to be projected. Agreement to sell which is sought to be claimed by the petitioner is dated January 27, 1992. The suit for specific performance was filed on May 9, 2008 more than 16 years thereafter. In the suit filed though the valuation of same has been shown as Rs. 1.50 lacs, on which Court fee of Rs. 10,370/- is payable, however, only Rs. 25/- has been affixed as Court fee. There are certain events which took place in the intervening period which are relevant i.e. a suit was filed by respondent No.5 against respondents No.1 to 4 for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in her favour which was decreed by the trial Court on October 11, 2003. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad on February 2, 2005. The Regular Second Appeal No. 1606 of 2005 was dismissed by this court on September 10, 2007 and even -2- Special Leave Petition against the judgment of this Court in Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It was thereafter that the suit was filed by the petitioner to defeat the right accruing to respondents No. 5 from a judgment and decree passed in her favour and upheld upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Prima-facie it is merely in connivance with respondent No.1 to 4 who want to defeat the right accruing to respondent No.5, from the judgment and decree passed in her favour by projecting a prior agreement to sell dated January 27, 1992 in favour of the petitioner. It was not disputed by the petitioner that such a stand was not taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the earlier litigation with respondent No.5. Keeping the aforesaid facts in view, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in no granting interim injunction in favour of petitioner. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 19.3.2009 JUDGE Reema