C. R. No. 4534 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4534 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 23, 2010 Avtar Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. Gursharan Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Salar, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Respondent no.1 filed suit against respondent no.2 for specific performance of the agreement. During pendency of the suit, respondent no.2 sold the suit land to petitioners, without allegedly disclosing the pendency of the suit. After the said sale, respondent no.2 effected compromise Annexure P-4 with respondent no.1 in the suit and consequently, trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2007 in terms of the compromise. On coming to know of the same, the petitioners filed application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for setting aside the said judgment and decree C. R. No. 4534 of 2010 2 and also filed appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court with application for leave to file the appeal because the petitioners were not party to the suit in the trial court. Learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-11), dismissed the application moved by the petitioners for leave to file the appeal and consequently, dismissed the appeal, primarily on the ground that the petitioners could not avail of two remedies simultaneously i.e. by filing application under Section 151 CPC in the trial court and by filing appeal with application for leave to appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not given option to choose either of the two remedies by the lower appellate court. It is further submitted that the petitioners want to pursue their remedy of application under Section 151 CPC in the trial court and the impugned order of the appellate court should not prejudice the said application moved by the petitioners. I have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions. As noticed herein above, learned lower appellate court dismissed the application moved by the petitioners for leave to appeal primarily on the ground that they could not resort to two remedies simultaneously. Since the petitioners want to pursue their application under C. R. No. 4534 of 2010 3 Section 151 CPC moved in the trial court, it is clarified that impugned order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-11), passed by the lower appellate court, shall not prejudice the petitioners in any manner in their application under Section 151 CPC pending in the trial court and shall have no bearing on the merits of the said application. With this clarification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 23, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE