IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.11.2010 C.R.No.7240 of 2010 (O&M) Gurjant Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Rajesh Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The defendants are in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 07.09.2010, whereby the petitioners were restrained from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.03.2006, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.60 lac out of which Rs.30 lac was paid as earnest money. Since the sale deed was not executed in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for specific performance alongwith an application for ad interim injunction. It is the said application, which has been allowed by the learned first Appellate Court vide order impugned in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs have sought refund of the amount of earnest money and, C.R.No.7240 of 2010 (O&M) therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be granted ad interim injunction in respect of the suit property. Reference is made to para No.4 of the reply to the legal notice dated 11.08.2007 appended with the present revision petition as Annexure P-8. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The defendant-petitioners on 11.08.2007 served a notice (Annexure P-7) upon the plaintiffs to the effect that the earnest money stands forfeited and that the defendants are ready and willing to execute the sale deed. It was in response to the said legal notice, the plaintiffs have asserted that the earnest money stands forfeited is incorrect. So is the fact that the defendants are ready and willing to execute the sale deed. It is further asserted that the plaintiffs have sought the refund of the earnest money and the equal amount as damages totaling to Rs.60 lac as per the agreement to sell. It is from the said para, it is alleged that the plaintiffs have sought refund of the earnest money and therefore, the injunction could not have been granted by the learned first Appellate Court. The averments made in the reply to the legal notice have to be read as a whole. The plaintiffs have claimed not only the refund of the earnest money, but also the amount of damages after asserting that the stand of the defendants that they are ready and willing to execute the sale deed is not correct. The plaintiffs have rebutted the assertion that the earnest money stands forfeited. Keeping in view the entire averments made in the reply, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiffs have unequivocally sought refund of the earnest money. The assertion is in respect of return of Rs.60 lac including damages. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners was asked that even at this stage whether the defendants are 2 C.R.No.7240 of 2010 (O&M) ready to refund Rs.60 lac as demanded by the plaintiffs, to which learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amount of Rs.30 lac stands forfeited. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 08.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3