IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 385 of 2001 Date of decision: 24.5. 2011. Bhadur Singh …Appellant. Versus Man Chand ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the appellant : Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. S.M.Goel, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge ( Oral ) This appeal has been directed at the instance of defendant against judgment, decree dated 17.7.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2001 modifying judgment, decree dated 24.4.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 38 of 1997. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction regarding suit land more specifically detailed in the plaint. The precise case of the respondent was that he had purchased the suit property and he is owner in possession of the suit land. The suit of the respondent was contested by the appellant on the ground that earlier appellant/defendant had filed Civil Suit No.212 of 1984 for possession of the suit land which was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu on 30.4.1986.The matter was carried in appeal 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 and the learned District Judge on 16.6.1990 in Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1986/142 of 1988 reversed the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1986 and decreed the suit and directed the defendants in Civil Suit No. 212 of 1984 to execute a sale deed in favour of appellant herein. The matter was further carried in RSA No. 392 of 1990 which was compromised on the basis of joint statement of the parties and RSA No. 392 of 1990 was disposed of in terms of the compromise on 13.11.1996. 3. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in view of the compromise decree passed in RSANo. 392/90 Khekh Ram Vs. Bhadur Singh whereby the decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the defendant/appellant and the amount having been deposited by him and possession delivered, the plaintiff/respondent who was a transferee was bound by the principles of Lis pendence and entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction? 2. Whether the findings of the court below are based on misconstruction of oral and documentary evidence, particularly the compromise Ex.D-1, dated 13.11.1996, the order of the High Court Ex.D-2, the judgment of the District Judge Ex.D-4, the plaint Ex.D-3 and the revenue records PW-1/A and PW-1/B which has vitiated the findings? 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has no right, title over the suit property inasmuch as he purchased the property during the pendency of the earlier litigation and, therefore, he is bound by the principle of lis-pendence. It has also come on record that the impugned judgment, decree dated 17.7.2001 has attained finality so far as the 3 respondent is concerned. The respondent has not filed any cross- objections or separate appeal against judgment, decree dated 17.7.2001. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has already filed execution petition for executing the decree passed by this Court in RSA No. 392 of 1990. The learned District Judge has found possession of the respondent on the suit land and he has clarified in the operative part of the impugned judgment by observing that the modified decree is passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to the effect that appellant/defendant shall be prohibited from causing interference in possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit land till the time respondent/plaintiff is lawfully dispossessed in due course of law. The appellant has already filed execution petition and, therefore, once the execution petition has been filed the decree passed in RSA No. 392 of 1990 shall be executed and appellant will get the requisite relief in the execution petition by following due process of law. 6. The stand of the respondent that he has title over the suit land on the basis of purchase has not been accepted by the court below and I am in agreement with the reasoning recorded by the court below in rejecting the claim of the respondent that he has title over the suit land on the basis of purchase. The substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are decided accordingly and the appeal is also disposed of in view of the observations made above. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. May 24, 2011 (GR)