Civil Revision No.1152 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1152 of 2008 Date of decision: July 6, 2009. Prithvi Pal Singh alias Pirthi Pal Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Randhir Kumar & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is at the instance of the defendant, who is aggrieved at the orders dated 24.10.2006 and 21.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa and the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, respectively, whereby he has been injuncted from alienating the suit land and his appeal against the said order has also been dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of agricultural Civil Revision No.1152 of 2008 -: 2 :- land measuring 193 kanal 18 marla situate within the revenue estate of village Mangala, Tehsil and District Sirsa. In the said civil suit, the respondent-plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC to restrain the petitioner-defendants from alienating the suit property to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The trial court as well as the learned first appellate court have accepted the said application and have restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the revision petition deserves to be allowed in part, only to the limited extent that in case the defendant-petitioner wants to alienate the suit property and/or a part thereof, he shall have to seek prior permission of the learned trial court, subject to the further condition that the trial court shall require the prospective vendee(s) to be present in court and give an undertaking not to take the plea of bona fide purchasers. The permission, if any, shall be granted by the learned trial court after notice to the respondent- plaintiffs. The impugned orders are accordingly modified to the extent above. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff points out that the petitioner-defendant has already availed six opportunities to lead his evidence but has not led the same on one pretext or the other and is prolonging the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that no unnecessary adjournments shall be sought by the petitioner. The trial court is accordingly directed to expedite the suit Civil Revision No.1152 of 2008 -: 3 :- proceedings and may not grant adjournments merely on the asking of the parties. Disposed of. July 06, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge