Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 Date of decision. 10.08.2009 1.Joginder Pal Jhanhi son of Lachhman Dass Jhanjhi, 2.Babita Rani Jhanjhi wife of Joginder Pal Jhanjhi son of Lachman Dass, Jhanjhi. Both residents of H. No. 1181, Mohalla Krishna Nagar Railway Road, Jagraon, District Ludhiana. ....... Petitioners Appellants suing for themselves and in representative capacity on behalf of: (i)The Sewak Bus & Transport Company Private Limited, G.T. Road, Moga, at present shop No.10, Opposite PRTC Workshop, Near Bus Stand, Ludhiana. (ii)All the shareholders of the Sewak Bus & Transport Company Private Limited. Versus 1.Didar Singh son of Nahar Singh alias Gulan Singh alias Ajaib Singh, resident of VPO Bhutta, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. 2.Randhir Singh son of Baldev Singh, r/o village Mangli, Tehsil and District Ludhiana 3.Gurdeep Singh son of Rajinder Singh son of Sewa Singh, 4.Harbinder Kaur wife of Rajinder Singh son of Sewa Singh, Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --2-- 5.Rajinder Singh son of Sewa Singh Residents of C/o Deep Financiers, GT Road, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga. 6.Pawan Kumar son of Sadhu Ram, 7.Kirandeep son of Pawan Kumar son of Sadhu Ram Residents of c/o Kissan Motors Workshop, near Hudai Car Agency, Focal Point, GT Road, Moga. 8.Kiranpal Singh son of Bant Singh son of Ram Singh, r/o Agwar Kummi Ka, Purana Moga, Tehsil and District Moga. ... respondents 9.Kuldeep Singh s/o Narain Singh s/o Hemant Singh, 10.Sukhjit Singh s/o Narain Singh s/o Hemant Singh Residents Sadhu Niwas, H.No. 350, Ward No.9, Nanak Nagri, Moga. 11.Prem Kumar s/o Daulat Ram s/o Bishan Ram, 12.Chander Prabha wife of Prem Kumar s/o Daulat Ram, 13.Dinesh Kumar s/o Prem Kumar s/o Daulat Ram, 14.Brij Bala widow of Manohar Lal s/o Daulat Ram, 15.Gagan Shankar s/o Manohar Lal s/o Daulat Ram, 16.Simaranjit s/o Manohar Lal s/o Daulat Ram residents of Trunka Wali Gali, Court Road, Moga, Tehsil and District Moga. 17. M/s Meet Associates Private Limited through Narinder Singh s/o Baldev Singh, near LIC Building, Ferozepur Road, Moga. ...... Proforma Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --3-- Present: Mr.Arun Nehra,Advocate for the petitioners. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 27.02.2009, (Annexure P-4), rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, filed by the plaintiffs (now revision-petitioners), was dismissed and the order dated 09.04.2009, (Annexure P-5), rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Moga, vide which the appeal was dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs (now revision petitioners) claimed themselves to be the share holders of Sewak Bus Transport Company, Private Limited (hereinafter referred to be as the 'Company' only ). It was stated that the sale deeds dated Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --4-- 08.05.1997,17.05.1997,18.05.1997,19.05.1997 24.05.1997, 12.03.1998 and 17.04.2003, executed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 (now respondent nos. 1 and 2) as Managing Director and Chairman of the Company, in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 5 and 8 were illegal and did not affect the rights of the petitioners and other share-holders. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 and 8 were many a time, asked to refrain from alienating the suit property, especially when their right against the Company, for grant of such equity shares of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been established, but to no avail. On their final refusal to admit the claim of the plaintiffs (now revision- petitioners), left with no alternative, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed. 3. Alongwith the suit, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for interim injunction was filed. Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --5-- 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court dismissed the application. 5. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide its order dated 09.04.2009. 6. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the plaintiffs/revision petitioners. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. 8. The Counsel for the revision- petitioners, submitted that, defendant nos. 1 and 2 (now respondent nos. 1 and 2 ), in violation of the injunction order, executed the sale deeds, referred to above, in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 5 and 8. He further submitted that with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Courts below were required to grant ad- Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --6-- interim injunction, in favour of the plaintiffs (now revision-petitioners). He further submitted that the observation made by the First Appellate Court, in its order dated 09.04.2009, that the only remedy with the appellants (now revision petitioners) was to proceed against respondent nos. 1 and 2, who executed the sale deeds, referred to above, in violation of the injunction order, to file an application for disobedience of that order was wrong. He further submitted that the orders of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioners, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition,deserves to be dismissed, however, subject to modification of the observation made by the First Appellate Court,in the order dated 09.04.2009, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The ad-interim injunction, which was sought by Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --7-- the plaintiffs (now revision petitioners) was that respondent nos. 3 to 5 and 8 in whose favour, the sale deeds have been executed, be restrained from alienating the suit property, during the pendency of the suit, filed for setting aside the aforesaid sale deeds, being illegal and having been executed in violation of the injunction order. If any allienation during the pendency of the lis, is made, that would be hit by the doctrine of lis-pendens as envisaged by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The alienees from respondent nos. 3 to 5 and 8 during the pendency of the lis, would be, ultimately, bound by the decree, if any, passed in the suit. So once there is a specific provision, in the Transfer of Property Act, in the shape of Section 52, to take stock of such a situation, in my opinion, the Courts below were right in declining ad-interim injunction. However, the First Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the only remedy with the Civil Revision No. 3146 of 2009 --8-- appellants (now revision petitioners) was to proceed against respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the disobedience of the order of the Court. The appellants (revision petitioners) have also other remedies available to them under the provisions of law. Such observation shall not affect the right of the revision petitioners, in availing of other remedies, under the law. The orders of the Courts below, except the clarification, referred to above, therefore, do not suffer from illegality, material irregularity or perversity and, therefore, do not warrant any interference, of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, subject to the clarification referred to above, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. August 10, 2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge