An interim injunction can be granted to restrain the alienation of property during the pendency of a suit, even in light of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar in Original Suit No.751 of 2023 (Mahesh and others vs. Omaira Buildcon Proprietor Lalit Gogia) wherein plaintiffs’ interim injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has been rejected on merits.

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.751 of 2023 against the defendant with the averments that the defendant is owner of land situated in khet No.114M, area 3250 square yard, village Mirzapur, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil and District Gautam Buddha Nagar which was agreed to be sold to plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.2.05 crores, regarding which there were talks between him and the defendant in November, 2021 and in furtherance of that, a registered agreement to sell in presence of the witnesses was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on 28.07.2022. According to which, the defendant had already received consideration of Rs.1.85 crores prior to the execution of the agreement and it was agreed that after paying the remaining consideration of Rs.20 lacs within a period of three months till 28.10.2022, the defendant will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, but inspite of the plaintiffs readiness and willingness to fulfill the terms and conditions of the above agreement, the defendant defaulted and failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, inspite of the legal notice by the plaintiffs to appear on 28.10.2022 before the concerned Sub-Registrar, Gautam Buddha Nagar. It is the case of the plaintiffs that when the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in their favour, then they was compelled to file the suit for the relief of specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 28.07.2022.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an interim injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. on the ground that the defendant be restrained from selling the disputed land in favour of third parties. The application was supported by an affidavit of plaintiff Mahesh Kumar, which reiterated the plaint averments and further mentioned that the defendant’s intention had turned malafide and he was intending to sell the disputed land to other persons, which will complicate the issue, as such, the defendant be restrained from alienating and selling the property.

4. The defendant opposed the above interim injunction application by filing his written objections in which it was averred that the defendant was the owner in possession of the disputed land and he was recorded as a tenure holder in the revenue record. It was further averred that no agreement to sell was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and an amount of Rs.1.85 crores was taken as loan by the defendant. The plaintiffs wanted to usurp the disputed land.The defendant was ready to return the amount of Rs.1.85 crores to the plaintiffs, but plaintiffs were unwilling to accept it. The alleged agreement to sell was executed as a security for the loan taken by the defendant from the plaintiffs. The defendants never sold the disputed propert