Civil Revision No.1669 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1669 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.07.2011 Amrik Singh ......Petitioner Versus Parminder Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.HPS Ishar, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Parminder Singh son of Avtar Singh-respondent-plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Amrik Singh son of Jarnail Singh-petitioner-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”) from interfering in his actual and physical possession and from transferring, the disputed plot, in any manner, bearing Khasra Nos.876, 877 and 880, situated at main Bhadso road, Patiala, inter alia, pleading that he purchased the plots in dispute from the defendant, by means of agreement to sell dated 30.08.2010, for a total consideration of `4,03,20,000/-. An amount of `63,20,000/- in cash was stated to have been paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale- deed. 2. The plaintiff claimed that earlier as he was having the cordial relations with the defendant, therefore, he(defendant) handed over him the vacant Civil Revision No.1669 of 2011 2 and physical possession over the suit land. After receipt of earnest money, his behaviour changed and now he illegally wanted to dispossess him from, and transfer the suit land, in order to defeat his(plaintiff) rights. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, in the manner described hereinabove. He has also filed an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC in this regard. 3. The defendant contested the suit and stay application, filed the written statement and reply to the application, inter alia, pleading that the suit filed by the plaintiff was frivolous and fictitious. The plaintiff was stated to have fabricated the alleged agreement to sell dated 30.08.2010. The defendant has denied the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed plots. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations as well, contained in the plaint and the stay application and prayed for their dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the stay application of the plaintiff, by virtue of order dated 10.12.2010. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was partly accepted and the defendant was restrained from alienating the suit property, in any manner, till the decision of the case by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment/order dated 13.01.2011. 6. The petitioner-defendant did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment/order of the first Appellate Court and preferred the instant revision petition. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this respect. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the agreement to sell dated 30.08.2010 is a forged and fabricated document, so, the Civil Revision No.1669 of 2011 3 first Appellate Court fell in legal error, in restraining him(defendant) from alienating the property in dispute, lacks merit. 9. As is evident from the record that the first Appellate Court has only restrained the petitioner-defendant from alienating the property in dispute, by way of impugned judgment/order dated 13.01.2011, the operative part of which is, as under:- “In case during the pendency of the case on the basis of this order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned lower court, the defendant/respondent is able to further alienate the suit property and later on it comes in the evidence that this agreement to sell dated 30.8.2010 has been validly executed by defendant/respondent Amrik Singh in favour of plaintiff/appellant Parminder Singh, then the purpose of filing suit by the plaintiff/appellant will stand defeated. On the other hand, if ultimately the plaintiff/appellant fails to prove the due execution of this agreement to sell and passing of the earnest money of `63,20,000/- to defendant/respondent Amrik Singh, then in that situation, no prejudice will be caused to defendant/respondent Amrik Singh. As such, keeping in view this, I think if the defendant/respondent Amrik Singh is restrained from alienating the suit property in any way till the decision of the present suit, I think no prejudice will be caused to defendant/respondent Amrik Singh. As such, the order passed by the learned lower court dated 10.12.2010 regarding alienation of the suit property stands set aside on this ground. Accordingly, the injunction application moved by the plaintiff/appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and the appeal filed against this order dated 10.12.2010 regarding possession over the suit property stands dismissed, because the plaintiff/appellant has hopelessly failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 30.8.2010. As regards, the alienation of the suit property, defendant/respondent Amrik Singh is restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner and through any one till the final decision of the case. Accordingly, the injunction application moved by plaintiff/appellant Parminder Singh and the appeal filed against order dated 10.12.2010 regarding alienation of the suit property stands allowed.” 10. As to whether agreement to sell dated 30.08.2010 is a valid document, as claimed by the plaintiff, or is a fabricated one, as urged on behalf of Civil Revision No.1669 of 2011 4 the defendant, would be a moot point to be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial, after adducing the evidence on record by the parties. To me, at this preliminary stage, it cannot possibly be commented upon, the validity or otherwise, of the agreement to sell, in the absence of any evidence. As indicated earlier, the first Appellate Court has only restrained the defendant from alienating the property in dispute and nothing else, by recording the valid grounds in the impugned judgment/order. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned judgment is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11 In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as, there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such with costs. July 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE