IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6617 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 26, 2009 Amar Singh and others. … Petitioners Versus Sukhdev Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. S.D. Anand, J. The plea raised by the plaintiffs-respondents, for the restraint of defendants-petitioners from alienating the land in suit, came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 07.02.2008. The finding was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide order dated 08.09.2008. There is no controversy about the following facts:- The defendants-petitioners had agreed to sell certain area of land to the plaintiffs-respondents, vide agreement dated 20.02.2007. One of the sale deeds, on the authority thereof, was executed on 03.08.2007; while the other sale deed was to be C.R. No. 6617 of 2008 executed on or before 03.08.2008. The unanimity of facts ends here. It came to the notice of the plaintiffs-respondents subsequently that the defendants – petitioners were not in a position to transfer a marketable title in the land in suit in view of the fact that they had already mortgaged it with a bank in lieu of certain amount of loan. In the light thereof, the plaintiffs – respondents filed a suit for the recovery of the earnest amount. The defendants – petitioners filed a counter contesting the averments made in the course of the plaint. The only averment made in the context, in the pleadings before the learned Trial Court, was that the land is free of encumbrance. It is apparent from the pleadings that the defendants – petitioners did not specifically plead redemption of that land. When the opposite party had made a specific averment to the above effect, it was for the defendants – petitioners to concede the factum of initial mortgage and, then, to plead that the mortgage stood redeemed. The pleadings were, thus, vague when an averment was made that the land is free encumbrance. It is conceded in the course of the presentation before this Court that no copy of redemption documentation had been enclosed with the pleadings at the trial. It is apparent in the circumstances of the case that the learned Trial Court did not have the advantage of adjudicating upon the controversy between the parties about the redemption of the mortgage aforementioned. The learned Trial Court did not adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of the plea presently 2 C.R. No. 6617 of 2008 raised on behalf of the plaintiffs – respondents that there had been unilateral extension of time for executing the sale deed. An adjudication about the validity or otherwise of the impugned unilateral extension is likely to have a relevant bearing in the matter of consideration of the ad-interim stay plea. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the plea under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh in the light of the above indicated facts which were not properly brought to its notice. The stay application shall be disposed of within one month from the next date of hearing. March 26, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3