CR No.1026 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1026 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 21,2009 Smt.Bala Devi @ Raj Bala and others ...........Petitioners Versus Jaspal ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.R.K.Singla, Advocate for the respondent -- Sabina, J. (oral) Plaintiff-Jaspal Singh filed a suit for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Vide order dated 22.1.2008, the trial Court restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and vide order dated 5.12.2008, the appeal was allowed restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from alienating the suit property in any manner. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition is devoid of any merit. In the present case, the defendants admitted the execution of the agreement dated 21.12.2001. Initially, Rs. 28000/- were paid as earnest CR No.1026 of 2009 (O&M) 2 money by the plaintiff to the defendants. On 20.12.2002 a further sum of Rs.7000/- were paid to the defendants by the petitioner and the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 30.3.2003. On 27.12.2002, the date was again extended upto 31.5.2003. In the receipt which was executed by the defendant on 20.12.2002, it was mentioned that the possession of the suit land had been handed over to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Additional District Judge rightly held that the plaintiff had a, prima facie, case and balance of convenience in his favour to protect his possession qua the suit property. In case, the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit land, during the pendency of the suit, he will suffer an irreparable loss. The defendants-petitioners have been rightly restrained from alienating the suit property in possession of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order does not call for interference. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge October 21, 2009 arya