C. R. No. 594 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 594 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 29, 2010 Aditya Singh Gill .... Petitioner Vs. Bachan Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. K. Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondent no. 1 – caveator. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Aditya Singh Gill (minor) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was allowed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide order dated 08.03.2004 (Annexure P-2) and thereby defendants/respondents were restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner during the C. R. No. 594 of 2010 2 pendency of the suit. However, appeal preferred by defendant-respondent no.1 Bachan Kaur against the said order has been allowed by the Appellate Court vide impugned judgment Annexure P-3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.1 only is the contesting respondent and she may be restrained from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit to protect the interest of the petitioner-plaintiff so that the decree, if any, that may be passed in favour of the plaintiff, is not defeated by alienation. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner has prima facie no case for grant of temporary injunction. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. However, without going into the merits thereof, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served, if defendant no.1, while alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit, makes recital in the alienation deed itself about the pendency of the suit, so that the alienee may not take the plea of being bona fide transferee without notice or knowledge of the suit. By such a direction, interest of the petitioner-plaintiff would be protected, whereas defendant- respondent no.1 would not suffer any harm or loss or injury. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of by directing that if defendant no.1 alienates the suit property or any part thereof during pendency of the suit, defendant no.1 shall recite in the alienation deed itself about the pendency of the suit and shall also intimate the trial court about any such alienation within two weeks of the alienation and shall also place on record, along with the intimation, copy of agreement/alienation deed. Nothing observed herein above, however, shall be construed as C. R. No. 594 of 2010 3 an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. The suit is pending since October 1999. The trial court is, therefore, directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Both the parties shall co-operate with the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit. January 29, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE