CR No.2322 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2322 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 15.12.2010 Bhupinder Kaur .. Petitioner Versus M/s Saini Enterprises and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.B.S.Sewak, Advocate for the petitioner. **** MAHESH GROVER J. (ORAL) No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service. On the last date of hearing also, respondent No.1 had not put in appearance. In this view of the matter, there is no option left with the Court but to proceed for determination of the matter. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and order dated 21.01.2010 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, who is the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deeds executed by M/s Pioneer Forest India Private Limited in favour of the CR No.2322 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: present petitioner and others be declared null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff-respondent. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that M/s Pioneer Forest India Private Limited is a creditor and owes an amount of Rs.8,70,520/- with interest to them but the sale deed has been executed in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff-respondents. In the backdrop of this, when the sale deeds were not denied, learned Courts below while answering the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 observed that to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it would be just and proper if the petitioner is restrained from alienating the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she was a bona fide purchaser of the property and after six years of the purchase, the instant suit has been filed to challenge the sale deed executed by the owner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, and upon perusal of the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner has purchased the property from erstwhile owners namely M/s Pioneer Forests India Private Limited. In case, any of the plaintiff-respondent have a dispute regarding some amount, then they have the remedy of recovering the amount from him under the process of law but it cannot stall the legitimate and bona fide rights of the petitioner as acquired by purchase of the property. The Courts below were, thus, in error in granting the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent by restraining the petitioner from alienating the property. The revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside and the restraint upon the petitioner from alienating the land is directed to be lifted. (MAHESH GROVER) December 15, 2010 JUDGE Sukhpreet