Civil Revision No.5603 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5603 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 10, 2010. Sat Pal Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Kamal Bhatia ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the respondent. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral): The petitioner, by way of this revision petition, has challenged the order dated 20.4.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Court, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff-respondent, for interim injunction against alienation of the property has been allowed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.10.2005 wherein the total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs only). The case of the plaintiff- respondent was that a sum of Rs.5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) out of the sale consideration of Rs.15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs only) stood paid, which is, however, disputed by the petitioner by alleging that he has received Rs.3 lacs (Rupees three lacs only) and not Rs.5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only). Civil Revision No.5603 of 2009 -: 2 :- There is no necessity to go into this controversy as it will be for the learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, to see as to whether the suit for specific performance is to be decreed or not, as also the amount paid as earnest money. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC praying therein that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant be restrained from alienating the suit property to any third party, as it will create third-party interest. The learned trial Court dismissed the application, but the learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned appellate Court on the ground, that the learned lower appellate Court committed an error in recording that the petitioner had a prima-facie, case by ignoring the settled law that agreement to sell gives no right or interest in the property, and merely on the basis of agreement to sell, the petitioner could not have claimed any right in land agreed to be sold. Any transaction of the suit property during the pendency of the suit would be hit by the principle of lis pendens. The learned appellate court was not right in allowing the injunction application. The dispute was as to whether the amount of Rs.5 lacs (Rupees five lacs only) or Rs.3 lacs (Rupees three lacs only) has been paid. The learned appellate Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the respondent had a prima-facie case, and that if the restraint order is not granted, third party interest would be created, which will result in irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff/respondent. Civil Revision No.5603 of 2009 -: 3 :- There is force in the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner, that a true owner cannot be restrained from alienating the property when the rights of the plaintiff-respondent are protected under principle of lis pendens. While vacating the injunction order, it is directed that if any transfer is made by the petitioner, to any third party, the plaintiff/respondents shall be bound to mention the fact regarding pendency of the suit, in the sale deed/transfer deed/mortgage deed or in any other mode of alienation. Subject to the condition referred to above, this revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. No costs. August 10, 2010. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] kadyan Judge