CR No.5284 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5284 of 2010 Decided on : 23.08.2010 Ishwar ... Petitioner versus Jage Ram & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. S.S.Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiff's revision petition against the impugned orders dated 28.04.2009 and 03.05.2010 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Safidon and District Judge, Jind respectively whereby his application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code for grant of ad-interim injunction during the pendency of the suit was dismissed. As per the averments made in the petition, petitioner and proforma respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondent from any kind of interference into their possession over the suit property and further restraining the respondents from dispossessing them forcibly and illegally. The petitioner is claiming possession of the suit property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.08.1979 allegedly executed in his favour by Mauji and Kundan s/o of Nanak Ram, who have inherited the suit property and sold the same to the petitioner vide agreement to sell CR No.5284 of 2010 -2- dated 29.08.1979. Along with the suit, petitioner filed an application for grant of ad-interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The suit as well as the application for grant of ad-interim injunction contested by the defendants-respondents submitting that defendants-respondents No.1 to 3 purchased the suit property from defendants-respondents No.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of Nanak Ram – deceased and were delivered possession vide sale deed dated 01.05.2006 and further the mutation of the aforesaid property was also sanctioned in their favour. After hearing the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the Courts below rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of ad-interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below have over- sighted the legal possession of the petitioner over the suit property as he was in possession for the last 27 years on the basis of agreement to sell dated 29.08.1979 and since then he was in actual physical possession. If the respondents are not restrained from interference into the possession of the petitioner, who is bona fide purchaser of the suit property will suffer a great loss and irreparable injury,. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. It is well settled law that agreement to sell does not confer any title. Till date plaintiff/petitioner has not filed any suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell in his favour. On the other hand, defendants-respondents are relying upon a sale deed dated 01.05.2006 and mutation sanctioned in their favour on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. Thus, prima facie there is no CR No.5284 of 2010 -3- merit in the claim of the petitioner that he is owner in possession of the suit property. There is no error in the impugned orders on the basis of which any interference is warranted in the impugned orders. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. August 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE