C.R.No.5109 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5109 of 2008 Decided on: September 23, 2009. Shimbu Dayal and another .. Petitioners VERSUS Lakhmi Chand etc. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs-petitioners filed this revision petition against the order dated 29.04.2008, passed by the District Judge, Faridabad, modifying the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Palwal, dated 29.03.2007. The plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a suit for injunction on the basis of their ownership and possession pertaining to one shop constructed on Khasra No.666. The trial Court on the basis of the material produced before it, declined the interim relief in his application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, . . . 1 C.R.No.5109 of 2008 regarding interference in the possession observing that the parties have not been able to establish their respective possession. However, the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding alienation of the shop in dispute during pendency of the suit. Both the parties aggrieved by the order passed by the lower Court filed an appeal before the District Judge, Faridabad. The lower appellate Court affirmed the order of the lower Court regarding interim injunction pertaining to possession but so far as the alienation of the property in dispute is concerned, it was observed by the trial Court that the alienation, if any, made by the defendants-respondents would be hit by the principle of lis pendens. After going through the orders passed by the Courts below, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference in the impugned order passed by the Courts below. The interest of the petitioners have been safeguarded by observing that alienation if any by the defendants-respondents would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens. The revision petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that in case the property in dispute is sold by the defendants-respondents during pendency of the suit the name of the subsequent purchasers will be disclosed by the defendants-respondents, so that the plaintiffs-petitioners may exercise their legal rights, if any, in accordance with law against the prospective purchasers. The trial Court is directed to complete the . . . 2 C.R.No.5109 of 2008 proceedings within a period of one year after the next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 23, 2009. rka . . . 3