C. R. No. 231 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 231 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 22, 2010 M/s Aagosh Polyfoams Private Limited, Chandigarh .... Petitioner Vs. Ajay Grover .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Respondent Ajay Grover (plaintiff) filed suit against petitioner M/s Aagosh Polyfoams Private Limited (defendant) for specific performance of agreement to sell along with supplementary agreements regarding suit property. The plaintiff, by moving separate application, claimed temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide order dated 05.05.2006, dismissed the C. R. No. 231 of 2009 2 plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. However, appeal preferred against the same by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P- 7) and thereby, defendant has been restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner to any person except the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Application moved by the defendant for review of the said order has been dismissed by the appellate court, vide order dated 06.10.2008 (Annexure P-10). Defendant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment Annexure P-7 and order Annexure P-10 passed by the appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Without entering into the merits of the rival claims of the parties, it has to be noticed that if the defendant alienates the suit property during the pendency of the suit, the said alienation would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens and therefore, the plaintiff would not suffer any loss or injury by any such alienation. However, plaintiff may be having apprehension that such alienee may claim to be bona fide purchaser without notice of the suit and therefore, may create complication. This apprehension of the plaintiff can be redressed by directing the defendant to inform the prospective alienee about the pendency of the suit. In that event, the plaintiff would not suffer any loss or injury by alienation. C. R. No. 231 of 2009 3 In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-7) and impugned order dated 06.10.2008 (Annexure P-10), passed by the appellate court, are set aside and application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiff/respondent is dismissed, subject to the condition that if during the pendency of the suit, defendant alienates the suit property in any manner i.e. by mortgage, sale, lease, gift etc., the defendant shall inform the alienee in writing by recital in the deed of alienation itself about the pendency of the suit and shall also, within one month of the execution of alienation deed, produce a copy thereof in the trial court. Nothing observed herein above shall effect the merits of the suit. July 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE