Civil Revision No. 5158 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 5158 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.7.2010 Ajit Singh …Petitioner Versus Dharam Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner Ajit Singh was owner in possession of property measuring 14 kanals, details of which have been mentioned in the suit for specific performance preferred by the respondents. It is not disputed that on 24.4.2007, an agreement to sell was executed between the parties and the sale consideration was agreed at Rs.1,08,50,000/- per killa. In pursuance thereof, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 2.2.2008 on payment of balance sale consideration. The case of petitioner/defendant is that the plaintiffs/respondents failed to pay the amount on or before the agreed date, therefore, he had not executed the sale deed. It is further stated that the plaintiffs-respondents were not in possession of the balance sale consideration as they have not stated in their plaint that Civil Revision No. 5158 of 2009 2 they were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that due to escalation in the price, the petitioner has not come forward to execute the sale deed. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been filed to restrain the petitioner/defendant from selling the suit property. The trial Court held that the principle of lis pendens is applicable and from various circumstances gathered, it denied ad interim injunction as balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an appeal. The District Judge, Amritsar, after taking into consideration the principle of lis pendens, held that there is an apprehension that the nature of property may be changed, therefore, its alienation or transfer was stayed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India 1995(3) R.R.R. 11 to contend that normally the injunction should not be issued against the owner in possession of the property. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered in Harbhajan Singh v. Harjit Singh 2006(4) Recent Civil Reports 454 and Ruldu Singh (Died) through Lrs. v. Nagar Panchayat of village Umarpura, District Sangrur 1997(3) P.L.R. 136. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment rendered in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass 2005 AIR (SC) 104 to say that the change in nature of the property should be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding Civil Revision No. 5158 of 2009 3 an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered in M/s Julien Educational Trust v. Sourender Kumar Roy and Others 2010(1) Civ.C.C. 312. During the course of arguments, this Court observed that as to whether a prospective purchaser, after paying an earnest money and not coming forward to pay the balance amount, can eclipse the rights of owner in possession till the conclusion of the suit, which will take a long time to conclude. It is well known that civil litigation is slow, tardy and time consuming process. To answer this observation, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents, at the outset, has stated that the suit is pending since 8.9.2008 and he will avail only two opportunities to conclude his entire evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has submitted that in case the trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a stipulated period, he will readily accept the offer made by learned counsel for the respondents. He further submitted that the defendant will also avail two effective opportunities to conclude his evidence. In view of the broad consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of by directing the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of nine months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, by affording two effective opportunities to each of the parties to conclude their evidence. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 12, 2010 “DK”