Civil Revision No. 3435 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3435 of 2011 Date of Decision: 23.5.2011 *** Ramesh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Amarjeet Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.12.2007 allegedly executed by respondent in his favour. Along with suit he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the suit property and from alienating the same to anybody else, during the pendency of the suit. The defendant denied the execution of the aforesaid agreement. The learned trial Court allowed the application of the petitioner for interim injunction. However, on an appeal filed by the defendant, the order passed by the learned trial Court was partially modified and the injunction application qua restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff was dismissed. The interim order qua alienation was, however, upheld. Dis-satisfied with the same the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition. Heard. It is evident from the records that the learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the recitals appearing in the said agreement to sell regarding delivery of possession to the proposed purchased, prima facie found the plaintiff in possession of the suit land and granted ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property during pendency of the suit. Though there is denial on the part of defendant qua the execution of the agreement, but to Civil Revision No. 3435 of 2011 2 avoid further multiplicity of litigation between the parties, it cannot be said that the approach adopted by the learned trial Court was erroneous. The parties are yet to lead their evidence and in this view of the matter the order of learned trial Court can be restored with a direction to the plaintiff to conclude his evidence within some reasonable time. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court is restored. However, the plaintiff is directed to conclude his evidence within two dates, failing which the instant petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feel dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 23, 2011 Jiten