IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7552-2025 (O&M)

Decided on : 27.10.2025 Shri Om & Ors. ……Petitioners Versus Shekhar @ Lalit & Anr.

……Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

In civil suit No. 1695 of 2023, titled ‘Shekhar @ Lalit Vs. Shri Om & Ors.’, pending before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Karnal, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the plaintiff Shekhar @ Lalit (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed by the trial Court on 27.06.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby defendants No. 1 to 5 (petitioners herein) were restrained from alienating the property in dispute. Said order has been upheld by the Appellate Court on 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Above orders have been assailed by the petitioners by way of this petition.

3. Petitioners being owners of suit property measuring 380 kanal 4 marla had agreed to sell the same to plaintiff Shekhar @ Lalit @ Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre vide an agreement to sell dated 11.02.2022. Cheques for an amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- were handed over to the petitioners- defendants as earnest money and sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 31.05.2022 on payment of balance sale consideration. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that prior to the target date, he came to know that in 2012, defendants No.1 to 5 i.e. petitioners herein had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with defendant No.6 (pro-forma respondent No.2 herein) and the said defendant had instituted a civil litigation against defendants No.1 to 5, which was pending before Civil Court Karnal. On coming to know of the said litigation, plaintiff stopped the payment of all the cheques and filed a suit before the Court to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit land. In a Panchayat convened on 18.05.2023, defendant No.6 agreed to withdraw the litigation on receipt of Rs.14,00,000/- from defendants No.1 to 5, which they agreed to pay. As per the case of the plaintiff, on the asking of defendants No.1 to 5, he paid an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- to defendant No.6, but later defendants No.1 to 5 i.e. petitioners herein avoided to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff accordingly prayed for a decree of injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property.

4. The defendants-petitioners contested the suit by contending that there was no agreement, as the cheques given to them were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

5. The trial Court as well as Appellate Court after perusing the documents made available on record, restrained the defendants-

petitioners from alienating the suit property.

6. Assailing the impugned orders, it is contended by learned counsel that suit filed by Surinder Singh i.e. defendant No.6 was frivolous as a similar suit earlier filed by him in 2013 was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.07.2015. It is also contended that cheques of Rs.1,01,00,000/- were dishonoured for insufficient funds and not due to any pending litigation, as was contended by plaintiff. It is also the contention of learned counsel that amount of Rs.14,00,000/- allegedly paid by plaintiff to defendant No.6 was not at the instance of defendants No.1 to 5-petitioners and that in the circumstances, agreement stood cancelled and so, the Courts below have wrongly granted the stay regarding the alienation.

7. After hearing learned counsel, this Court does not find any merit in the contention.

8. As has been observed by the Appellate Court that after filing the written statement and reply to the injunction application, defendants i.e. petitioners herein were proceeded ex-parte and the case is now fixed for ex-parte evidence. As to whether cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, or whether their payment was stopped due to any pending litigation, will be a matter of evidence, which will be led by the plaintiff.

9. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid observations made by