IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6342 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 07.02.2008 Amardeep Singh and another ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate vs. Sohan Lal Sharma and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Arvind Thakur, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar whereby defendants No.3 and 4 have been directed to produce on record the original sale deeds. The facts may be noticed briefly. The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell regarding a land measuring 3 kanal 12 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Karoran, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. The said agreement to sell was allegedly entered into between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff. It appears that defendant No.2 has further sold the suit land to defendant Nos.3 and 4 i.e. the petitioners herein. C.R. No.6342 of 2006 -2- It is well-known that in order to defeat or frustrate the rights of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, the defaulting vendor(s) may sell the same ostensibly to create a false plea of “bonafide purchasers”. The petitioners have admittedly purchased the suit land from the vendor i.e. defendant No.2. They may further create any charge/encumbrance and/or sell the same to yet another party and it is with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure that in the event of succeeding the suit, the plaintiff may get the land in dispute free from encumbrances, that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that a direction to maintain status-quo has already been issued, therefore, the petitioners cannot execute further sale deed and/or create any encumbrance. It may be true, however, merely by production of the original sale deeds, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners, especially when the petitioners can always approach and persuade the learned trial Court for the release of the original title-deed(s), as and when the same are required for some bona fide reasons. No case to interference with, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Dismissed. February 07, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE