Civil Revision No. 3473 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3473 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.5.2010 Satish Kumar ..... Petitioner vs Raghav Sadana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition filed by the defendant no. 1 is to the order passed by the learned court below in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC whereby the petitioner has been restrained from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Briefly the facts are that defendants vide agreement to sell dated 24.9.2004 agreed to sell the property in question to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 78 lacs. Rs. 10 lacs were received by them as earnest money and the balance price was agreed to be received at the time of execution and registration of sale-deed. The defendants also agreed to pay the entire loan amount due towards them. The tentative date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 21.4.2005 but at the request of the defendants, the date of execution was preponed to 20.1.2005. Further sum of Rs. 14,03,000/- was paid towards balance sale consideration. An endorsement to that effect was also made on the back of the agreement to sell dated 17.11.2004. Despite receipt of Rs. 26.12 lacs, they did not turn up to perform their part of the contract on 21.4.2005 in the office of Sub- Registrar, Amritsar, which resulted into filing of suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and the learned Lower Appellate Court having confirmed the same, the defendant is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of interim stay restraining the petitioner from alienating the suit property will prejudice his right as the suit may take long time in disposal and he will not be able to enjoy the fruits of his property. The principles of lis pendence will govern in case the property is sold during the pendency of the suit. Civil Revision No. 3473 of 2010 -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Once it is alleged that substantial consideration money out of the total sum settled for execution of sale-deed has been paid to the petitioner, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to alienate the property during the pendency of the suit as the same may result in multiplication of litigation. The buyer of the property can raise various objections at the stage of execution of decree in case the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is decreed which may frustrate the decree passed in their favour. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 24.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge