Dismissed

Anil Gambhir v. Roshan Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2009CR/3318/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petition challenging an order upholding a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating suit property. The Court held the order was not perverse as the principle of lis pendens applied to avoid multiplicity of litigation amidst an undisputed agreement to sell.

What did the court decide?

Application under Order 39 CPC maintaining temporary injunction on alienation of property; Civil Revision Dismissed.

Anil Gambhir Vs Roshan Lal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CR No.3318 of 2009(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 3318 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 01, 2009

¶5

Anil Gambhir

¶6

...........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Roshan Lal

¶9

..........Respondent

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina

¶11

Present: Dr.Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr.V.D.Goel,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Jagmohan Singh Chowdhry, Senior Advocate with Mr.F.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondent

¶13

Sabina, J. (oral)

¶14

C.M. No.26484-CII of 2009

¶15

Application is allowed as prayed for and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the submissions made on 26.10.2009 re: execution of sale deed .

¶16

C.R.No.3318 of 2009

¶17

Roshan Lal-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. Along with suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. The learned trial Court vide order dated 2.5.2006,while allowing the application for temporary injunction, restrained the defendant from alienating the suit

¶18

¶19

CR No.3318 of 2009(O&M)

¶20

property to any one else other than the plaintiff. The said order was maintained by the Additional District Judge in appeal vide order dated 25.3.2009. Hence, the present revision petition.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

The execution of the agreement to sell in question is not in dispute. The plea taken by the petitioner-defendant in the suit is that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Although the principle of lis pendens will apply yet to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation, the Courts below rightly restrained the petitioner from alienating the suit property to any one else other than the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The impugned order cannot be said to be perverse which would warrant interference by this Court.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

( Sabina ) Judge

¶25

December 01, 2009

¶26

arya

Anil Gambhir v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Gambhir v. Roshan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Aazam Vs Abdul Jabbar and Anr.

Faridkot Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Mukhtiar Singh and Anr.

Sarabjit Singh Vs Ramandeep Singh and Others

Rajender Vs Baru Ram

Gurmeet Singh Pehalwan Vs Preeti @ Manpreet Kaur

Khem Singh Vs Chiranjiv Singh