CR No.6634 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6634 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 11-10-2010 Balwant Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Nachhattar Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner alleges an agreement to sell in his favour of the year 2000 which he did not get translated into sale deed till 2008 when he ultimately filed a suit for specific performance. During this interregnum, another agreement to sell was executed by the vendor in favour of the third party which came into existence in the year 2003 and since the vendor was not executing the sale deed the suit for specific performance was filed by third person to get agreement to sell enforced in his favour which was decreed. Appeal against this judgment and decree followed which was also dismissed implying thereby that the decree passed by the Trial Court was affirmed in appeal. The petitioner in the suit filed by him pleading agreement to sell in his favour wants to injunct the sale and alienation of the property in question. I am afraid that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be CR No.6634 of 2010 (O&M) 2 answered in the manner which has been prayed for before this Court. As on today third party rights have come into existence on the basis of a valid Court decree. If any alienation takes place during the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner and in the eventuality of his assailing and establishing his right before the Civil Court, the rule of lis pendence will come into play but in the eventuality of his not establishing any right the third party rights which have come into existence cannot be disturbed because petitioner had filed instant suit for specific performance. Discretion vested in the Court have been rightly exercised and in view of the fact that there was no perversity in the impugned order the discretion so exercised by the learned Trial Court and affirmed in appeal cannot be interfered with. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. October 11, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge