Ram Chand Gupta, J.:- C.M.No.8623-24-CII of 2011

Both the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions.

C.R.No.2166 of the 2011

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of orders dated 16.8.2010 and 21.2.2010, Annexures P8 and P9, passed by Courts below vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Code’) has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below.

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.1.1999 in respect of House No.1169, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, and in alternate, for recovery of ‘10 lacs as damages was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff against respondents-defendants no.1 to 4 on the brief allegations that Smt.Sumitra Gadhoke, mother of defendants and wife of late Shri Bishambar Nath Gadhoke, resident of House No.1169, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, was the owner of the said house and during her lifetime, she entered into an agreement to sell the house in dispute on 12.7.1997 for consideration of Rs.18,50,000/- and in case vacant possession was to be delivered the price was settled at Rs.21,50,000/-. Part of the ground floor of the said house was already in possession of Smt.Sumitra Gadhoke and she agreed to deliver the vacant possession of the same. Subsequently, another agreement dated 24.1.1999 was executed between the parties. Earlier ‘2.00 lacs were paid and thereafter Rs.2,20,000/- were paid. The last date for execution of the sale-deed was fixed as 31.12.2000. Smt.Sumitra Gadhoke also filed ejectment petition against the tenants occupying portion of the said house. She died on 3.11.2002 leaving behind her legal heirs. Plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and however, on refusal of defendants to get the sale deed executed in his favour as per the agreement, the present suit for possession was filed. Respondents -defendants no.1 to 4 filed written statement contesting the suit on the ground that no such agreement was executed by their mother in favour of petitioner-plaintiff. However, it is admitted that Smt.Sumitra Gadhoke during her lifetime filed ejectment petition against tenants occupying portion of the house in dispute.

4. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for ad interim injunction order was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff against original respondents-defendants no.1 to 4, and the same was disposed of vide order Annexure P5 by learned trial Court directing respondents no.1 to 4 to brought to the notice of the proposed vendee regarding the present pending litigation.

5. During pendency of the said suit, the house in dispute was sold by respondents no.1 to 4 to respondents no.5 to 7 and hence, they were also impleaded as a party in the present suit.

6. Another application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed by petitioner-plaintiff restraining defendants from demolishing, renovating and from altering the structure of the premises in dispute as well as for further alienating or letting out the house in dispute. The prayer was opposed by respondents-defendants no.5 to 7 on the plea that they have become owner of the same by sale for consideration. The said application was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing that as during pendency of suit, respondents no.5 to 7 have become owners of the property in dispute, they are having right to deal with the same, in any manner, they like. Appeal filed against the said order by present petitioner-plaintiff was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court.

7. It has b