C.R. No. 4190 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4190 of 2011 Date of decision:-23.12.2011 Kuljeet Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus Angrej Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. N.P.S Mann, Advocate for the respondents 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 12.05.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, whereby appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and order of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Budhlada dated 27.11.2009 has been set aside. Petitioner filed civil suit for specific performance of agreement dated 20.02.2006 whereby respondents had agreed to sell land measuring 37 kanlas 6 marlas situated in the area of the village Sapike Tehsil Budhlada. The land was to be sold at the rate of ` 5,90,000/- for 8 kanals and ` 6,00,000/- was paid as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses. The remaining amount will be paid at the time of execution and registration C.R. No. 4190 of 2011 -2- of sale deed on 20.08.2006. The petitioners were present for execution and registration of the sale deed in the office of Sub Registrar, Budhlada. The defendants extended the date to 20.10.2006. This was done in the presence of witnesses by making endorsement on the backside of agreement in question. On 20.10.2006, the defendants orally requested the plaintiffs/petitioners that they are unable to execute the sale deed and they will intimate the next date of execution and registration of sale deed. Their presence was marked before the office of Sub Registrar Budhlada on an application dated 20.10.2006. The plaintiffs/petitioners served the legal notice upon the defendants/respondents on 19.12.2008. Hence the suit was filed. Along with the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for grant of ad interim injunction. The defendants put in appearance on notice of the application and did not dispute the contents of the agreement to sell. They admitted that they had received ` 6,00,000 as the earnest money. Their case was that the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to get the sale deed executed and registered in their favour by not appearing before the Sub Registrar, Budhlada on 20.10.2006. They had appeared before the Sub Registrar on 20.08.2006 and their presence was also marked. The defendants were restrained to alienate the property during the pendency of the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal before Additional District Judge, Mansa who set aside the order of the trial Court relying upon C.R. No. 4190 of 2011 -3- the typographical mistake in the notice served upon the defendants. The appeal of the defendants was allowed by holding that mere agreement to sell does not confer any title in favour of plaintiffs-respondents. When the date of execution of sale deed was extended from 20.08.2006 to 20.10.2006, there was no occasion for the defendants to come present before the Sub Registrar, Budhlada on 20.08.2006. The plaintiffs have not been able to prove that defendants were also present in the office of Sub Registrar Budhlada. The trial Court while allowing the application had rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation of property during the pendency of the suit. The Lower Appellate Court has committed the illegality in exercise of its jurisdication by setting aside this order. The observation of the lower Appellate Court that the defendants/respondents were not present before the Sub Registrar on20.08.2006 as the time was extended to 20.10.2006 is not borne out from the facts. The trial Court had specifically observed as under:- “The copy of the agreement to sell dated 20.02.2006 placed on record by the plaintiffs-applicants. The photostat copy of the endorsement made on the back side of the agreement to sell showing the extension of dated 20.10.2006 for execution and registration of the sale deed in the presence of the parties to the suit as well as in the presence of the witness and the affidavit of even date of applicants show that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs-applicants.” Hence the endorsement on the back side of the agreement to C.R. No. 4190 of 2011 -4- sell by which the time was extended for execution of the sale to 20.10.2006 proves that the defendants/respondents were present in the office of Sub Registrar when the time was extended. Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the records of the petition. The execution of the agreement to sell is not disputed between the parties. The defendants entered into agreement to sell the suit property i.e 37 kanals 6 marlas of land to the applicants at the rate of ` 5,90,000/- per 8 kanals in the presence of witnesses. The respondents received a sum of ` 6,00,000/- from the petitioners/plaintiffs as earnest money and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on 20.08.2006. On this date, in the presence of both the parties, the date of execution was extended to 20.10.2006. These facts are not disputed. The balance of convenience is in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs. The respondents is in possession of the property and will not suffer any irreparable loss if they are restrained from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit. Order dated 12.05.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa is set aside and respondents are restrained from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Accordingly, civil revision is allowed. 23.12.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE