Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar And Others vs Praveen Kumar And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065359
CR-987-2023(O&M)
-1-
127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-987-2023(O&M)
Date of decision : 09.05.2024
Pawan Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Vs.
Praveen Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and
Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants to assail the
correctness of the order passed by the First Appellate Court on 20.12.2022,
while restraining them from alienating the suit land. Originally, the trial Court
dismissed the plaintiff's application for grant of temporary injunction, however,
the same was reversed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The plaintiff-Sh.Parveen Kumar filed suit for grant of decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit
property. His entire case is based upon a receipt dated 20.05.2022, evidencing
the receipt of token money of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of
Rs. 3,37,12,500/-
3. Immediately, on dismissal of the application for temporary
injunction, the defendants sold the property in favour of one Sh. Munshi Singh
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065359
CR-987-2023(O&M)
vide sale deed dated 13.06.2022. Subsequently, the first appeal filed by the
plaintiff was allowed on 20.12.2022.
4. On 14.02.2023, the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants
No.1 to 4, inter-alia, contends that the petitioners
never entered into any agreement with respondent
No.1-plaintiff to sell the suit land to him and this
assertion gets corroborated from the fact that the
plaintiff has averred in Para No.1 in the plaint that
the amount of Rs.02 lac was transferred in the bank
account of defendant No.2 only and defendants No.1,
3 & 4 did not provide the details of their respective
bank accounts for depositing the similar amounts in
the same whereas in the alleged agreement Annexure
P-4 (actually described as 'Receipt'), the recital qua
the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 having agreed
for the deposit of the said amounts by the plaintiff in
the bank accounts of each of the said defendants, does
not find mention at all and though, vide the order
dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure P-2), the trial Court had
rightly dismissed the application as filed by the
plaintiff for seeking ad-interim injunction but vide the
impugned judgment Annexure P-1, the Lower
Appellate Court has wrongly reversed the above-said
order while ignoring the afore-referred crucial
aspects of the matter.
Notice of motion.
Let notices be issued to the respondents for
12.07.2023 through ordinary process, email or any
other electronic mode. Dasti as well.
The operation of the impugned judgment
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065359
CR-987-2023(O&M)
Annexure P-1 shall remain stayed till the next date of
hearing. "
5. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that in February
2024, even Sh. Munshi Singh has transferred the property in favour of
subsequent vendees who are stated to be the owners of the property by virtue of
the sale deed. Neither Sh. Munshi Singh nor the subsequent vendees are party
to the litigation.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the revision petition is
disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to file simultaneous applications for
impleadment of subsequent vendees as party as well as for the grant of
injunction, which shall be decided by the Court uninfluenced by the previous
orders passed by the trial Court or by the First Appellate Court.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
09.05.2024 JUDGE
neeraj
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
