C.R. No.3728 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3728 of 2007 Date of Decision: 08.12.2009 R. M. Lal and another .……Petitioners Versus Charanjit Kaur ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiffs initially filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs, but wanted to alienate the same to some third person. The plaintiffs sought injunction restraining the defendant-respondent Charanjit Kaur from alienating the suit land in any manner. During the pendency of the suit, by amendment, suit was converted into a suit for possession of the suit land by specific performance of the agreement to sell. Plaintiffs along with suit moved application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C), seeking to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner till final decision of the suit, C.R. No.3728 of 2007 -2- except in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide order dated 18.07.2005 allowed the aforesaid application of the plaintiffs. However, on appeal preferred by defendant, learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 10.04.2007 set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The stand of the defendant is that the writing dated 16.03.2005 which is basis of claim of the plaintiffs does not create any right in favour of the plaintiffs because the said writing is not an agreement. The plaintiffs failed to finalise the remaining terms of the agreement and to pay balance earnest money as per said writing. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that writing dated 16.03.2005 (Annexure P-1) is also an agreement to sell as it embodies all terms of agreement to sell. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that writing (Annexure P-1) is not an agreement to sell and rather it specifically recites that agreement to sell was to be executed later on for which also date was fixed and balance earnest money was also to be paid, but was not paid. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Writing (Annexure P-1) states that agreement to sell shall be executed between the parties later on and balance earnest money shall also be paid. However, details of the land to be sold and the consideration for the same have been mentioned in writing C.R. No.3728 of 2007 -3- (Annexure P-1). Possession of the suit land was admittedly not transferred to the plaintiffs under writing (Annexure P-1). Possession of the suit land continues with defendant-respondent. Consequently, if the defendant alienates the suit land during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs would not suffer any loss or injury much less irreparable one because the transfree would also be bound by the decree to be passed in the suit, in view of doctrine of lis pendens. However, if temporary injunction as asked for is granted in favour of the plaintiffs and ultimately the plaintiffs do not succeed in the suit, the defendant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury by grant of temporary injunction. Conversely, interest of the plaintiffs can be safeguarded by directing the respondent-defendant to recite in the deed of the alienation that the suit is pending, so that the alienee would not be able to raise the plea of being bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice of the pendency of the suit. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent that if during the pendency of the suit, the respondent-defendant alienates the suit land, the defendant-respondent shall specifically recite in the deed of alienation that suit filed by the plaintiffs is pending. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 08.12.2009 A. Kaundal