2023:PHHC:052906

CR-2249-2023 (O&M)

-1-

123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2249-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: April 17, 2023

Sukhbir Singh

….Petitioner

versus

Dharminder Singh and another

….Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:-

Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for petitioner.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

CM-6665-CII-2023

For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed subject to all just

exceptions.

Main case (O&M)

Petition herein is for setting aside impugned order dated 29.03.2023

(Annexure P-7) passed by learned First Appellate Court whereby interim stay order

dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned trial Court on an application

under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (for short ‘CPC’), was vacated.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that defendant No.1

entered into an agreement with petitioner, to sell his land measuring 26 K-0M at the

rate of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre i.e., total consideration of Rs.19,50,000/-. Defendant

No.1 received Rs.19,00,000/- as earnest money at the time of agreement. Thereafter,

defendant No.1 resiled from aforesaid agreement. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent

injunction along with an application for interim stay. Said application was dismissed

and plaintiff/petitioner challenged the same before learned First Appellate Court.

Meanwhile, defendant No.1 sold the suit land to defendant/ respondent No.2 and

made statement accordingly, and suit was dismissed as infructuous. Defendant No.1

MAHAVIR SINGH

2023.04.22 11:52

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/ judgment

2023:PHHC:052906

CR-2249-2023 (O&M)

-2-

also got an FIR registered against plaintiff. The plaintiff/petitioner approached this

Court by way of CRM-M-22708-2021 and was granted interim bail on 10.06.2021.

Further contends that defendant No.2 tried to sell property further. Plaintiff/ petitioner

filed suit (Annexure P-3) for specific performance of agreement to sell and also filed

an application (Annexure P-4) for interim stay. Vide order dated 01.11.2022

(Annexure P-6), learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid application and defendant

No.2 was restrained from alienating the land in question. Aggrieved, defendant No.2

filed an appeal before learned District Judge against aforesaid order, which was

allowed vide impugned order dated 29.03.2023(Annexure P-7) setting aside the

interim order dated 01.11.2022 (Annexure P-6).

2.1.

Learned counsel would further contend that learned First Appellate

Court wrongly interpreted the undertaking given by petitioner in criminal case

regarding not enforcing agreement in question till final outcome of proceedings in

FIR. However, the given undertaking was that petitioner would enforce agreement to

sell subject to final outcome of FIR proceedings. Further contends that respondent

No.2 is trying to alienate suit property by creating third party rights.

3.

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to issue

notice to respondent/defendants, as no serious prejudice would be caused to them.

Notice to respondents is thus dispensed with.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.

5.

Impugned order dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned

District Judge, Ferozepur is premised, inter alia, on the following reasoning:

“13.

Perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court

shows that petitioners were granted bail subject to undertaking that they

would not enforce agreement to sell till finalization of proceedings in

FIR. It is case of the defendant/appellant that agreement to sell in favour

of respondent/plaintiff is forged and fabricated and does not bear

signatures of defendant no.1 and FIR was lodged against plaintiff and

his father and they went for securing anticipatory