C.R. No. 2218 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2218 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.7.2009 Sandeep Kaur alias Harpreet Kaur .......... Petitioner Versus Lakhwinder Singh & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 7485-CII of 2008 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. C. R. No. 2218 of 2008 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.2007, passed by the learned lower appellate Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff / respondent No.1. The plaintiff / respondent No.1 brought a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.5.2005, executed by Sohan Singh as attorney of Harjit Singh. Shri Harjit Singh is stated to have died after the execution of the agreement to sell by Sohan Singh as his attorney. The C.R. No. 2218 of 2008 2 property in dispute was said to have been inherited by Sohan Singh. Smt. Sandeep Kaur alias Harpreet Kaur was impleaded as party, as she claimed herself to be widow of Harjit Singh, thus, claimed right in the land, which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff / respondent No.1. There is a dispute inter se between the parties as to whether Sandeep Kaur alias Harpreet Kaur is widow of Harjit Singh. It is claimed by respondent No.2 that she is widow of Daljit Singh and not of Harjit Singh, thus she has no right, title or interest in the suit property. Be that as it may, once the title has not passed on to the plaintiff, it could not be said that plaintiff had any prima facie case to seek injunction against the true owner. The vendee who buys the property during the pendency of the suit, would be bound by the decree on the principle of lis pendens. There is no irreparable loss to respondent No.1, in case injunction is not granted. The order passed by the learned lower appellate Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, that Sandeep Kaur alias Harpreet Kaur has challenged this order by claiming her right being widow, which is disputed by her father-in- law, it would be necessary, that rights of the parties are protected. Therefore while setting aside the impugned order, it is made clear that any sale made by the petitioner or respondent No.2, shall contain a covenant, that the land in dispute, is subject matter of litigation before the Civil Court. Revision disposed of in above modified terms. 21.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE