IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6078 of 2011 Date of decision: November 01, 2011 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. Mohinder Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P1) allowed the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') and restrained the defendant from interfering in the peaceful and lawful possession of the petitioner over the land measuring 16 kanals comprised in Khewat No.90, Khatoni No.121, Rect. No.40, Killa No. 11 (8- 0), 12/1 (4-0), 12/2 (4-0) and residential house, as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. However, the Appellate Court, vide its order dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P3), set aside the order passed by the trial court and refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the land measuring 34 kanals 7 marlas of which the suit i.e. 16 kanals is part of it and he is in possession of the same since then. The plaintiff had also got constructed residential house over the land measuring 3 kanals i.e. one kanal out of the land comprised of Killa No. 12/1 and two kanals out of the land comprised in Killa No.12/2 and he is in possession of the same as such. On being threatened he had to prefer the suit. Along with the main suit, he filed an application for ad-interim injunction. The defendant contested the suit while pleading that the sale was made by the defendant during the pendency of the suit for specific performance filed by him against Massa Singh vendor and Jagir Kaur. It was further averred that the said sale deed having been executed by Massa Singh having been suffered during the pendency of the suit is wrong, illegal Civil Revision No. 6078 of 2011 -2- *** and void. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands and sale deed was suffered by Massa Singh in order to thwart the right of the defendant, therefore, the defendant is not entitled to seek any injunction. The trial court allowed the application whereas the appellate court accepted the appeal and refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has come up in appeal. The relief of ad-interim injunction being equitable relief could be granted in favour of the persons coming to the courts with clean hands and relief being discretionary in nature could be granted in favour of the persons having bona fide claims. Massa Singh had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the defendant Mohinder Singh on 30.11.2000, on the basis of which his said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent (now defendant) on 20.2.2009 by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ferozepur, therefore, the present sale effected after passing of the decree by the trial court is certainly suffers from the principles of lis pendens. The respondent having obtained the decree was entitled to earn fruits of the same by seeking possession in execution of the decree. As such, the plaintiff cannot be said to be having prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. If the plaintiff is granted injunction, then certainly the defendant would be deprived of earning fruits under the decree. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. November 01, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge