Civil Revision No.2569 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2569 of 2010 Date of decision: 08.11.2010 Dharambir Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Bjinder and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. K.C. Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate, for respondent No.1. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, thereby rejecting application moved by third party/subsequent purchaser/petitioners (herein) under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. The brief facts of the present case are that in the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent (herein) a restraint order was passed by the trial Court on 30.9.2003 not to alienate the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. Despite of the restraint order, defendant-vendor has alienated the property in question in favour of the petitioners/subsequent purchasers vide sale deed dated 27.7.2004. Having purchased the property vide sale deed dated 27.7.2004, Civil Revision No.2569 of 2010 -2- subsequent purchasers/petitioners have moved application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, which was rejected vide impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Smt. Gomti and others Vs. Purshotam and others, 2008(1) PLR 164 having placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Surjit Singh Vs. Harbans Singh, 1995(3) RRR 560, has held that if alienation in favour of subsequent purchaser is in violation of restraint order then third party should not be permitted to contest the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC as the alienation/assignment would be illegal. In view of the restraint order by the trial Court dated 30.9.2003, it was not open to the defendants to alienate the property in favour of the subsequent purchasers/petitioners (herein), hence, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Surjit Singh (supra) as relied by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Smt. Gomti (supra), no liberty can be granted to the petitioners/subsequent purchasers to contest the suit. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 08, 2010 R.S.