Dismissed

Bala Devi @ Raj Bala and Ors. v. Jaspal

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2009CR/1026/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an appellate order granting temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance. The court held that the lower courts correctly restrained the defendants from alienating the property due to the plaintiff's possessory interest and risk of irreparable loss.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no interference in the impugned orders of the trial court and appellate court.

Bala Devi @ Raj Bala and Ors. Vs Jaspal — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No.1026 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.1026 of 2009 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: October 21,2009

¶6

Smt.Bala Devi @ Raj Bala and others

¶7

...........Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Jaspal

¶10

..........Respondent

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶12

Present: Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.R.K.Singla, Advocate for the respondent

¶13

Sabina, J. (oral)

¶14

Plaintiff-Jaspal Singh filed a suit for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. Vide order dated 22.1.2008, the trial Court restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and vide order dated 5.12.2008, the appeal was allowed restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from alienating the suit property in any manner. Hence, the present revision petition.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition is devoid of any merit.

¶16

In the present case, the defendants admitted the execution of the agreement dated 21.12.2001. Initially, Rs. 28000/- were paid as earnest

¶17

CR No.1026 of 2009 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

money by the plaintiff to the defendants. On 20.12.2002 a further sum of Rs.7000/- were paid to the defendants by the petitioner and the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 30.3.2003. On 27.12.2002, the date was again extended upto 31.5.2003. In the receipt which was executed by the defendant on 20.12.2002, it was mentioned that the possession of the suit land had been handed over to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Additional District Judge rightly held that the plaintiff had a, prima facie, case and balance of convenience in his favour to protect his possession qua the suit property. In case, the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit land, during the pendency of the suit, he will suffer an irreparable loss. The defendants-petitioners have been rightly restrained from alienating the suit property in possession of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order does not call for interference.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

( Sabina ) Judge

¶22

October 21, 2009 arya

Bala Devi @ Raj Bala and Ors. v. Jaspal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala Devi @ Raj Bala and Ors. v. Jaspal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Singh Vs Hardial Singh and Ors.

Harish Kumar Vs Shiv Lal and Ors.

Harpreet Kaur Vs Managing Committee Khalsa College

M/S Sant Industries Vs Punjab Financial Corporation & Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Dhian Singh Vs Atma Ram