C. R. No. 5137 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5137 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 19, 2009 Pal Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Ashok Kumar and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for respondent no.2. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff, who has been unsuccessful in getting temporary injunction from both the courts below. Case of the plaintiff is that defendant-respondent no.1 obtained sale deed dated 27.05.2003 of the suit land by fraud on the pretext that the petitioner was to witness the sale deed to be executed by one Surinder Kumar and after administering liquor, respondent no.1 obtained signatures of the petitioner on blank stamp papers and other blank papers in collusion with C. R. No. 5137 of 2008 2 deed writer. Respondent no.1 has exchanged the suit land with respondent no.2. The petitioner sought temporary injunction restraining respondent no.2 from alienating the suit land in any manner during the pendency of the suit. The trial court vide order dated 07.09.2007 dismissed the petitioner's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by the petitioner also stands dismissed vide judgment dated 08.09.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Respondent no.1 was proceeded ex-parte. However, respondent no.2 contested the suit and the application and denied the allegations of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner has miserably failed to make out prima facie case in his favour because the impugned sale deed is a registered deed. The petitioner has taken the plea that his signatures were obtained on blank documents. However, his signatures appear even on his photograph on the sale deed. Moreover, the petitioner also appeared before Sub Registrar and admitted the execution of the sale deed before him and appended his signatures even in the presence of Sub Registrar. In these circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that his signatures were obtained on blank papers after administering him liquor on pretext of being witness to a sale deed to be executed by Surinder Kumar, cannot be accepted prima facie. Both the courts have taken a proper view of the matter. In addition to the aforesaid, petitioner filed suit challenging the sale deed about four years after it was executed. The petitioner has of course alleged that he came to know of the forged sale deed later on. However, it is not specifically pleaded as to when he learnt of it, but it has been mentioned that he moved application to Settlement Officer, Rohtak in C. R. No. 5137 of 2008 3 the year 2006. There is no explanation as to why he did not file the suit immediately. It is thus apparent that the petitioner has no prima facie case. The impugned sale deed is a registered document. Balance of convenience is, therefore, in favour of respondent no.2, who has got the suit land in exchange for her own land with respondent no.1, who had purchased the suit land from the petitioner. In these circumstances, if temporary injunction is granted, respondent no.2 will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Conversely, if temporary injunction is not granted, petitioner will not suffer any irreparable loss or injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass reported as 2005 (1) Civil Court Cases 430 (S.C.), contended that Court should not permit alienation of property during pendency of the suit, unless a case of irreparable loss or damage being caused to the other party is made out. In the instant case, however, respondent no.2 will suffer irreparable loss and injury if temporary injunction asked for is granted. On the other hand, the trial court has already safeguarded interest of the petitioner. Transferee pendente lite would be bound by the decree that may be passed in the suit. In addition to it, the trial court has safeguarded the interest of the petitioner by directing that in case respondent no.2 alienates the suit property during the pendency of trial, she shall intimate the trial court about the same and shall also furnish names of alienees and the factum of the pendency of the suit shall be incorporated in the deed of alienation. In view of this direction, the transferee pendente lite would not be able to take the plea of being bona fide purchaser or the plea of being ignorant of the pendency of the suit. Consequently, alienation, if any, that may be made by respondent no.2 during pendency of the suit, would not cause any injury to the petitioner, C. R. No. 5137 of 2008 4 much less irreparable one. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is expressly clarified that nothing observed herein above shall influence the trial court while deciding the suit finally. May 19, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE