CR No. 1484 of 2011 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No.1484 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 25.03.2011.

Bhupinder Singh

.......Petitioner

Vs.

Avtar Singh & others

......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate

for the petitioner.

.....

SABINA, J.

Plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for possession by

way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.4.2005.

Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Vide order dated

14.8.2008, Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the

application for temporary injunction. The appeal filed by

plaintiff-petitioner against the said order was dismissed by

Additional District Judge vide order dated 18.1.2011. Hence, the

present petition by the plaintiff.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner,

I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

Petitioner has filed the suit for possession by way of

specific performance of agreement to sell in question qua his half

CR No. 1484 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

share. As per the agreement to sell in question, plaintiff along

with his brother defendant No.3 had agreed to purchase the suit

property in equal shares. The courts below have declined the

relief of temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiff was

trying to seek part performance of the agreement to sell in

question qua his half share. The plea taken by the plaintiff that

defendant No.3 in connivance with defendants No. 1 and 2 had

played fraud upon him, was yet to be proved by leading evidence,

in this regard. In these circumstances, the courts below rightly

dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Moreover, the

alienation, if any made during the pendency of the suit would be

hit by principle of lispendence.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed

(SABINA)

JUDGE

March 25, 2011

Gurpreet