Civil Revision No. 3177 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3177 of 2010 Date of decision : July 02, 2010 Daljit Kaur and another ....Petitioners versus Desa Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners None for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is revision petition by the plaintiffs filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing judgment dated 25.1.2010, Annexure P/2 passed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana. Plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell the suit property allegedly entered into by defendant- respondent with the petitioners. The plaintiffs alleged that possession of the suit property was also delivered to them by the defendant. Along with the suit, plaintiffs also moved application for temporary injunction. Defendant denied the alleged oral agreement and pleaded that plaintiff no. 1/petitioner no. 2 Satnam Singh is tenant in the suit property Civil Revision No. 3177 of 2010 -2- under the defendant. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide order dated 25.9.2009, Annexure P/1, allowed plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property and restrained the defendant from interfering in any manner into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and alienating the same except in due course of law. Appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned judgment dated 25.1.2010, Annexure P/2 and thereby application for temporary injunction moved by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file whereas none has appeared on behalf of respondent in spite of service. Learned counsel for the petitioners states at the bar that the petitioners do not press their claim for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit since any alienation made during the pendency of the suit would be hit by doctrine of lis-pendens. However, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners are in possession of the suit property, defendant-respondent should be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property during the pendency of the suit except in due course of law. There is considerable force in the submission. Even the defendant has admitted that plaintiff no. 1 Satnam Singh is in possession of the suit property although as tenant whereas Civil Revision No. 3177 of 2010 -3- according to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the suit property pursuant to oral agreement. However, for the purpose of temporary injunction, it is suffice to observe that possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property is not disputed. Learned District Judge in impugned judgment Annexure P/2 did not discuss the question of possession over the suit property for granting temporary injunction qua possession but discussed only question of injunction against alienation of the suit property. On the other hand, the petitioners being admittedly in possession of the suit property, defendant-respondent has no right to dispossess them therefrom except in due course of law. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant revision petition is allowed and defendant-respondent is restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and from interfering in their possession thereon during the pendency of the suit except in due course of law. However, nothing observed herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 02, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'