CIVIL REVISION NO.5423 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 24, 2008 Pitamber Dayal .....Petitioner VERSUS Khazan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. A. S. Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Revision No.5423 of 2007 (Pitamber Dayal Vs. Khazan Singh and others) and Civil Revision No.5407 of 2007 (Pitamber Dayal Vs. Sukh Ram Yadav and others) . The order passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, declining the prayer of the petitioner for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, is under challenge through both these Revision Petitions. Lal Chand was owner and in possession of 1/5th share out CIVIL REVISION NO.5423 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: of the suit land measuring 188 Kanals 19 Marlas. He is stated to have become exclusive owner of particular Khasra numbers. Lal Chand constituted Sh.Bijender Singh as a general power of attorney on 30.3.1992. He accordingly sold 3 Kanal 8 Marlas of land and later on entered into an agreement to sell for a land measuring 4 kanals 10 marlas on 29.1.1993. Total consideration is stated to be Rs.8,39,500/-, which was stated to have been paid by the petitioner. It is further stated that in part performance of the agreement the actual physical possession of the land was handed over by the G.P.A. to the petitioner. It is conceded that no sale was subsequently executed and that Lal Chand died on 3.2.1993, leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. Alleging that the petitioner is in actual physical possession, he has filed the present suit, seeking direction for execution of the agreement to sell. He has also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking protection of his possession, which as per him, he is entitled to retain. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had approached the respondent- defendants on 25.12.2006, asking them to execute and register the sale deed in favour of his nominee. It is then disclosed that on 14.2.2007, the petitioner had learnt that the respondents, in collusion with each other, have illegally and fraudulently executed a sale deed on 7.2.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs.56,25,000/-. The petitioner has, thus, filed a suit for declaration that the impugned sale deed is illegal, sham and bogus transaction and not binding on the right of the petitioner beside seeking decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29.1.1993. The respondents filed written statement to the suit as well CIVIL REVISION NO.5423 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: as to the application seeking interim direction. It is alleged that the claim of the petitioner is based on false and fabricated documents and the land has already been transferred in favour of the persons who are defendants in the suit. Even mutation has also been sanctioned in their favour. Though the petitioner was granted interim order in his favour but the Appellate Court, after making reference to various submissions made before it, has reversed the same, which is impugned through the present revision petitions. The agreement is dated 29.1.1993. The entire sale consideration was allegedly paid on the said date. This agreement is 3 days prior to the date of death of the owner whose attorney had already agreed to sell the land. The agreement is by an attorney. A fact of great significance, which may need a notice is that the attorney entered into this agreement with his real brother. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that if this agreement was indeed in existence, the petitioner could not have waited 14 years to make a move for execution of the sale deed. Where is the sale consideration? Was it accepted by brother from a brother? There are some other facts noticed by the Appellate Court which would cast doubt on the story as put forth by the petitioner, which may not need any detailed reference. These facts in itself are alarming, which would prima-facie show that all does not seem to be above board. Mere fact that the petitioner took 14 years to wake up, would be enough to say that prima-facie balance of convenience would not be in his favour for grant of any interim order. It has also been observed by the Appellate Court that the petitioner was not able to establish as to how he came in possession of this land, though the counsel CIVIL REVISION NO.5423 OF 2007 :{ 4 }: appearing for the petitioner very vehemently submitted that the petitioner can seek protection of his possession even at this stage. No infirmity is noticed or seen in the impugned order, which would call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. April 24,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE