CR No. 2937 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2937 of 2011 Date of Decision: 04.5.2011. Surender Pal Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Smt. Veena and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs has filed a suit for symbolic possession on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.10.1995. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide the impugned order dated 8.6.2010, the trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and alienating the same to another person except the plaintiff. The said order was upheld in appeal, filed by the plaintiff, by the Additional District Judge vide the impugned order dated 15.3.2011. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant No.5 had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of ` 85,500/- on 19.10.1995. ` 70,000/- were paid towards earnest money by the plaintiff to the vendor. CR No. 2937 of 2011 -2- However, defendant No. 5 had sold the suit land to defendants no. 1 to 4 vide sale deed dated 19.2.2008. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The agreement to sell in question was executed on 19.10.1995 and out of the total sale consideration of ` 85,500/-, ` 70,000/- were alleged to have been paid towards earnest money. In the agreement to sell in question, it was stated that defendant No.5 was leaving for Kenya and would get the sale deed executed on his return. Defendant No.5 allegedly returned back from Kenya in the year 2007 and sold the suit property to defendants No. 1 to 4 vide the sale deed dated 19.2.2008. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff in February 2010 basing claim on the agreement to sell dated 19.10.1995. It has been noticed by the courts below that defendants No. 1 to 4 are in possession of the suit land. It has also been noticed by the learned Additional District in the impugned order that it was not mentioned in the agreement to sell in question that the plaintiff had been delivered the possession of the suit land. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the courts below rightly held that the plaintiff did not have any prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour. Defendants No. 1 to 4, who had purchased the suit property, were found to be in possession of the suit property. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE May 04, 2011 Gurpreet