C.R.No.5130 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5130 of 2009 Date of Decision : 23.11.2009 Parshotam Dass and others ...Petitioners Versus Jangir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 21.8.2009, whereby the defendant-petitioners were restrained from running of the Rice Sheller. The petitioners are purchasers of land measuring 16 Kanals from Gurdev Singh vide sale deed dated 22.5.2008. On the aforesaid date, the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.12.1987 was pending before the competent Court. The suit for specific performance was decreed by the learned trial Court on 6.4.1992. The said judgment and decree was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court on 27.3.1995. The said decree has been affirmed in second appeal by this Court on 4.9.2009 in RSA No.1875 of 1995. It has been held that the sale in favour of the present petitioners is subject to doctrine of lis pendens and, therefore, does not confer any title in their favour. C.R.No.5130 of 2009 2 The plaintiff-respondents have initially filed a suit for permanent injunction to seek restraint order against the defendants from raising any construction over the land in dispute. However, the defendant-petitioners have raised construction before the grant of injunction, therefore, the plaintiff-respondents filed another application for claiming ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from running of the Rice Sheller. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application, but the learned first Appellate Court allowed the same. It is the said order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. The only ground to challenge the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court is that the relief claimed in the ad interim injunction application is not the relief claimed in the main suit, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be granted any ad interim injunction as ordered by the learned first Appellate Court. The said argument is not tenable. The petitioners are transferee pendente lite. Such transfer cannot confer any right in favour of the petitioners. The suit for specific performance of the plaintiff-respondents has been decreed. Therefore, the plaintiffs have a right to protect their interest. The defendant-petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the ad interim injunction granted by the learned first Appellate Court for the reason that the transfer in their favour has been found to be hit by doctrine of lis pendens. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. C.R.No.5130 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners has then argued that since the paddy of Markfed is lying stocked in the Rice Sheller for shelling. The non-performance of such contract will create further financial burden on the petitioners, therefore, they should be allowed to run the Rice Sheller till 31.12.2009 to meet out their contractual obligations. Mr. S.C.Pathela, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection for the said limited relief. In view of the said fact, though the present revision petition is dismissed, but the petitioners are permitted to use the Rice Sheller till 31.12.2009 only for the purposes of clearing the available stock. In no case, the petitioners shall run the Rice Sheller after 31.12.2009. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 23.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE