C. R. No. 4808 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4808 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 24, 2010 Hareinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Pawan Kumar and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents ex-parte. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4635-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-7 to P-10 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Plaintiff Hareinder Singh, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below in securing temporary injunction, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has filed suit for possession of suit property by C. R. No. 4808 of 2009 (O&M) 2 specific performance of agreement to sell and also for permanent injunction. It has been alleged that defendants agreed to sell the suit plot to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 27.01.2006. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendants failed to perform their part of contract. The petitioner-plaintiff made application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit plot during pendency of the suit. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, vide impugned order dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure P-5), dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide impugned judgment dated 24.02.2009 (Annexure P- 6). Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that notice Annexure P-7 allegedly sent by the defendants was allegedly sent under postal certificate, which is not a reliable mode. It was also contended that in reply Annexure P-10, the defendants did not refer to notice Annexure P-7. It was also contended that agreement in question stands admitted by defendants in their reply. Earnest money was also paid to defendants, as admitted by them as well. In view of the aforesaid, I find that a prima facie case for granting some relief to the plaintiff-petitioner is made out. The approach of the courts below is erroneous and illegal. However, instead of injuncting the defendants from alienating the suit land merely on the basis of agreement, ends of justice would be met if defendants are directed that in case of alienation of suit plot during pendency of the suit, the defendants would specifically recite in deed of alienation about the pendency of the suit. Such a direction would not cause any loss or injury to the defendants. At the C. R. No. 4808 of 2009 (O&M) 3 same time, such a direction would protect the interest of the petitioner- plaintiff as well because the alienee would not be able to raise plea of being bona fide purchaser, without notice of pendency of the suit. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant revision petition is disposed of with direction to the defendants/respondents that if they alienate the suit plot during pendency of the suit, they shall specifically recite in the deed of alienation regarding pendency of suit, as indicated above. However, nothing observed herein above, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. February 24, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE