SBCWP No.1526/2008 Khem Singh Vs. Devi Lal & Ors. 1 SBCWP No.1526/2008 Khem Singh Vs. Devi Lal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 15.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Mahesh Thanvi, for the petitioner. Mr.ML Chhangani, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's injunction application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 29th July, 2006 and appeal against the said order too was dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 22.10.2007. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that two courts below have committed serious error of fact and error of law in rejecting the petitioner's prayer only for restraining the defendants from selling the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. It is also submitted that the appellate court has also committed error of law by rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. SBCWP No.1526/2008 Khem Singh Vs. Devi Lal & Ors. 2 After going through the facts of the case and the reasons given by the two courts below, I do not find that any case is made out for interference by this Court in impugned orders when two courts below have dismissed the petitioner's prayer and further more the principle of lis- pendence fully applies in and if the sale is effected by the defendant of the property in dispute during the pendency the suit, then subsequent purchasers are also bound by the decree passed in the suit. In that situation also, I do not find that any other specific order is needed. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-