CR No.4088 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.4088 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION:16.09.2010 **** Om Parkash . . . . Petitioner Vs. Joginder and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This revision petition is at the instance of the plaintiff, who has remained unsuccessful before both the Courts below in his application filed for ad interim injunction. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff vide its order dated 06.04.2010 observing as under: “As already stated plaintiffs/applicants are claiming themselves in possession of 17 marla as per agreement dated 16.8.2001 but that agreement by itself does not create any right in favour of applicants/plaintiffs and is not sufficient to show that plaintiffs/applicants are in possession of the suit property. Reliance can be placed upon law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Kumar Gonsusab & Ors. Versus Sri Mohammad Miyan Urf Baban & Ors, 2008(3) SLJ, 1457, in which in para No.11, it has been held that a contract for sale does not of itself, CR No.4088 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - create any interest or charge in immoveable property. Therefore, where the parties enter into a mere agreement to sell, it creates no interest in the suit property in favour of the vendee and the proprietary title does not validly pass from the vendors to the vendee. No doubt this ruling was given in the suit regarding pre-emption but law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this judgment is clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.” Whereas, the First Appellate Court dismissed the Misc. Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff by observing as under: - “Moreover, the suit for permanent injunction on the basis of an agreement to sell is not competent as at the most the prospective vendee can file suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell after the date of execution and registration of the sale deed or that the notice to refuse execution of the sale deed is made to the prospective vendee where no date is fixed for execution of the sale deed and rightly so the plaintiffs have filed a suit bearing No.202 dated 14.8.2004 on the strength of the agreement dated 16.8.2001 and also challenged the sale deed no.558 dated 21.8.2001 to be illegal and null and void and in the alternative suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell with a consequent relief of permanent injunction which is pending in the Court of Shri Rohit Wats, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat wherein the next date of hearing is fixed to be 2.6.2010, copy of the plaint of the CR No.4088 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - said suit is also placed on the file. Therefore, the fresh suit for injunction is not maintainable as the plaintiffs should have made the subsequent vendees of the suit property party in that suit for specific performance of the agreement but separate suit for permanent injunction is not competent.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, the learned Court below should have granted injunction but he could not challenge the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court to the effect that the petitioner had already filed a suit for specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction in which no injunction has been granted, therefore, second suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. In view therefore, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 JUDGE Vivek