BALBIR SINGH Vs. SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Balbir Singh is plaintiff in the trial court. He has filed suit for symbolic possession of the suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell, with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The trial court, vide order dated 01.05.2013 (Annexure P -1), allowed the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from alienating the suit land till final decision of the suit. However, appeal preferred by the defendants against said order of the trial court has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P -2) and consequently, application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction has been dismissed, with stipulation that in case the defendants intended to sell the suit land during pendency of the suit, then the fact of pendency of the suit shall be brought to the notice of the prospective vendee and acknowledgment of prospective vendee that he is in knowledge of the present suit shall be brought on record. In the instant revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff has challenged aforesaid judgment (Annexure P -2), passed by the lower appellate court. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(2.) DEFENDANTS are still owners of the suit land because sale deed has not been executed in favour of plaintiff -petitioner. Interest of the plaintiff has been safeguarded by the lower appellate court by stipulating that the defendants would inform the prospective vendee about pendency of the suit. In view thereof, any alienation of the suit land during pendency of the suit shall be hit by doctrine of lis pendens. Irrespective of it, the vendee would not be able to raise the plea of being bona fide purchaser in ignorance of the pendency of the suit. Consequently, interest of both the parties has been safeguarded.