Civil Revision No. 1898 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1898 of 2010 Date of decision:- 29.7.2010 Raghbir and others ......petitioners vs. Parkash and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. K.L. Suneja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate and Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocate for respondents 1 to 5. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The plaintiff-petitioners are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 2.2.2010, whereby the application for grant of ad-interim injunction was dismissed by maintaining the order passed by the learned trial Court on 30.9.2009. Plaintiff-petitioners are the legal heirs of Giani who is said to have purchased land measuring 71 Bighas along with Chandgi from its owner Smt. Krishna Devi vide registered sale deed dated 14.12.1957. The plaintiff-petitioners have set up a case that Defendants No. 1 to 5 in collusion with Chandgi have succeeded in getting executed a sale deed on 10.11.1964 by impersonation of Giani, on the basis of which defendant- respondent Nos. 1-5 are claiming interest in the suit property. It is alleged that the sale deed is result of fraud and the plaintiff-petitioners are the owners of the suit property. An application for ad-interim injunction has Civil Revision No. 1898 of 2010 -2- been filed along with the suit in which plaintiff-petitioners claimed that defendant-respondents should be restrained from alienating the suit property and also prayed that nature of possession should not be changed. It is the said application, which has been dismissed by the Courts below by the orders impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court represented as Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.,), vs. Baldev Dass (2004)8 SCC 488 , and a judgment of this Court Jeeto vs. Joginder Singh and ors, 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 148 (P&H) to contend that the petitioners are entitled to injunction as the land, subject matter of challenge in the suit is actuated by fraud. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The question whether sale deed executed in 1964 is actuated by fraud, can be decided, only after opportunity is granted to the parties to lead evidence. In the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Supra), the respondent had made a statement that he has no intention of alienating any part of the suit property and that defendant shall raise construction at his own risk and without any compensation. Therefore, the said judgment does not provide any help to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Jeeto's (Supra), this Court has relied upon Maharwal Khewaji's to grant an injunction from alienating the suit property. The Court has power and jurisdiction to grant injunction from alienating the suit property on making out exceptional case but such power and jurisdiction of the Court is not to the exercise in routine and irrespective of the controversy involved. Generally, the doctrine of lis pendens is Civil Revision No. 1898 of 2010 -3- sufficient to protect the interest of plaintiffs. As per, the said doctrine, the alienation effected by party to the suit, is ineffective, void and non est, qua the interest of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration for challenging a document of sale effected by the defendants on the ground of fraud. Any sale of the subject matter of suit, shall be subject to doctrine of lis pendens. By virtue of the said doctrine, an alienee will not get any benefit of the sale, if plaintiff-petitioners succeed in the suit. It is also well settled that an alienee during the pendency of suit is not a bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration. It is clarified that any sale effected by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and any construction raised by the defendants is subject to doctrine of lis pendens and shall not create any legal or equitable right in favour of the alienee. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 29.7.2010 preeti