Civil Revision No. 6883 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6883 of 2008 Date of decision : 12.1.2010 Baljinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Shawinder Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The concurrent status quo order, granted by the learned Trial Court and learned Ist Appellate court, is under challenge at the hands of the defendant-petitioner. For enabling appropriate appreciation of the controversy, it would be useful to notice the respective pleadings of the parties in the first instance. Vide agreement dated 10.6.2005, the petitioner-defendant agreed to sell 61 kanals 1 marlas of land (comprised in Khasra Nos. 92/ ½ 2/1,8,9,12/1, 13, 14/1, 17/2, 92/24/1) in the area of villagte Rajkot, which he owned and was in possession, to plaintiffs-respondents at the rate of Rs.35 lacs per acre. He got a sum of Rs. 15 lacs as earnest amount. It was agreed that the sale deed in respect of one killa each shall be got Civil Revision No. 6883 of 2008 -2- **** registered by 30.12.2005, 30.6.2006 and 30.12.2006. It was further agreed that the sale deed qua the balance area of land shall be got exeucted on 30.6.2007. A sum of Rs. 5 lacs was payable by plaintiff- respondent to defendant-petitioner by 30.8.2005 and it was thereafter that the sale deed in respect of one killa was to be got registered by 30.12.2005. The usual default clauses were also incorporated in the impugned agreement. It is common ground that a sum of Rs.5 lacs was indeed paid by the plaintiffs-respondents to defendant-petitioner on 30.8.2005 and that the date for payment of balance amount of Rs. 30 lacs was extended on 30.12.2005 to 20.1.2006. It was thereafter that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for the restraint of defendant-petitioner from alienating the land aforementioned. In that suit, the plaintiffs- respondents also filed a plea under Section 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. It was disposed of by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure P-7), by ordering the parties to observe status quo regarding “the possession as well as the existing position at the site in dispute”. The finding was affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court vide order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-8). The defendant-petitioner is in revision against it. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner, that the very suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent was not maintainable in view of the fact that cause of action for specific performance had arisen in favour of plaintiffs-respondents and he could not wish away the application for grant of that relief and rest content by mere filing of a suit for injunction. In that very context, it was argued that the impugned agreement too was invalid for want of registration which Civil Revision No. 6883 of 2008 -3- **** (registration) was a compulsively affair in terms of provisions of Section 17 (1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. In an act of resistance, it is argued on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs that cause of action had not yet culminated in view of the following facts:- Defendant-petitioner had agreed to sell one acre land by 30.12.2005. They did, however, get a sale deed executed and registered in respect of one kanal and one marla area out of that one killa land. This was got done inspite of the fact that the date for execution in the context had been mutually extended on 30.12.2005 itself to 20.1.2006. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the impugned agreement, that the sale deed in respect of the different parcel of the land had been agreed to be executed and registered at different points of time and the sale deed with regard to the balance area of land was to be executed and registered on 30.6.2007. The suit came to be filed prior thereto. It cannot, thus, be argued with any justification that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. It requires to be noticed that, as per the consensual part of the pleadings, a sum of Rs.10 lacs had already been paid by the plaintiffs- respondents to the defendant-petitioner and the possession of the entire land had already been delivered. In that view of things, it was in the fitness of things that status quo order was granted by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Ist Appellate Court. The controversy about the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of Section 17(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act shall have to be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court on the conclusion of the trial. Civil Revision No. 6883 of 2008 -4- **** In that context, it would require to be noticed that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents very fairly stated that though the issues on the pleadings of the parties had already been framed, the defendant-petitioner could make a plea to the learned Trial Court for treating the controversy about the maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue. That matter is left to the discretion of the defendant- petitioner. The powers of the revisional Court in such type of matters are fairly limited. This Court would intervene only if it is indicated that the learned Trial court and the Ist Appellate court had taken a perverse view of the matter. It is not so in the present case. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and shall stand dismissed accordingly. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is directed that the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the main suit itself by or on 14.6.2010. The acknowledgment (of a copy of this order) issued by the concerned Judicial Officer shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court. Learned Sessions Judge shall himself maintain a tab to ensure that the case is disposed of by afore-mentioned date. January 12,2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE