Civil Revision No. 4034 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4034 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 23 , 2009 J.K.Kaushal ...... Petitioner Versus S.K.Kaushal and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No.1 in person. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed (by only one of the four applicants) against the order declining permission to them to sell the land in dispute. Respondent No.1 filed the suit claiming that out of the entire land in dispute he was entitled to 32 kanals. In an earlier revision bearing CR No. 6 of 2005 the following direction was issued:- “Consequently, without interfering in the impugned order dated 17.9.2004, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that till the final decision of the civil suit, the respondents shall not alienate the subject property and/or a part thereof without seeking prior approval of the learned Civil Court. As and when an application is moved by them for such permission, the learned trial Civil Revision No. 4034 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Court is directed to give advance notice to petitioner and thereafter only appropriate orders shall be passed.” It is consequent to this order that the present application was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to sell the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a senior citizen and huge prejudice would be caused to him in case he is not permitted to sell his land. He has further offered that in any document regarding alienation a stipulation can be made that the said alienation is subject to the result of the civil suit and that the alienee would be bound by the decision of this suit. In reply respondent No.1, who has appeared in person, has argued that this prayer is not maintainable under Section 10 of the C.P.C. In my opinion Section 10 of the C.P.C. has no application since that applies to the entertainment of a second suit. In the present case it is in the main suit that an application has been filed. Second argument of respondent No.1 is that in the case of Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. reported as AIR 1986 SC 806, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that coordinate bench cannot differ from the decision of an earlier bench. He has argued that in case permission is granted it would be in violation of the order passed in the earlier mentioned CR No.6 of 2005. In my opinion this is not so. That order specifically permitted the petitioners to move an application before the court for permission to sell the property which is exactly what they have done. He ha also raised objection regarding the maintainability of this petition by placing reliance on a case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others reported Civil Revision No. 4034 of 2009 (O&M) 3 as AIR 2003 SC 3044 para 26 of which is as follows:- “In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated or experience and expressed by enactments where the legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior court or tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have concluded.” A perusal of the last sentence of the above extract is a complete answer to the contention of the respondent. In my opinion the interest of respondent No.1 can be safeguarded by restraining the petitioners from alienating that portion of land which is claimed by him. Even though in the Civil Revision No. 4034 of 2009 (O&M) 4 plaint the respondent No.1 claimed 32 kanals of land yet today he has argued that if permission is given to the petitioner to sell the remaining land he may sell better quality land which may not be enough to satisfy his claim. In the circumstances it would be in the interest of justice to restrain the petitioners from alienating 40 kanals of land. Alienation of any land apart from 40 kanals would carry a stipulation that the said alienation would be subject to the result of the present suit and that the proposed alienation would also be bound by the decision of this suit. Respondent No.1 has also argued that the other respondents have not been served and, therefore, this order would have the effect of prejudicing their interest. I find from the impugned order that none except the respondent No.1 had opposed this application. This, of course, does not mean that the other respondents before this court do not have the right to move an application for recalling this order in case warranted. It is further clarified that the petitioner would not be allowed to make any alienation before 1.1.2010. Petition stands disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 23, 2009 sunita