Sandeep Sood and Anr. Vs Sunil Kumar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

Sandeep Sood and Anr. Vs Sunil Kumar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of with relief to petitioners: judgment dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) of District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar set aside; alienation of suit property to be governed by principles of lis pendence, with sale permitted only after due permission of the Court subject to petitioners-plaintiffs' objections; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 18.03.2026 of the District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, setting aside the interim restraint on alienation of the suit property, should be set aside in revision under Article 227, given the pendency of the specific performance suit and the petitioners-plaintiffs' plea of irreparable loss, prima facie case and balance of convenience.

Court's answer

The order of the Court of First Instance (Civil Judge, Kharar) restraining alienation was in line with statutory provisions, the parties being bound by the principles of lis pendence under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it being necessary to protect the rights of both parties.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment dated 18.03.2026 of the District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Annexure P-1) is set aside.

Key takeaways

Any alienation of the suit property shall be governed by the principles of lis pendence; the respondent-defendant can sell the suit property only after obtaining due permission of the Court, subject to consideration of objections, if any, raised by the petitioners-plaintiffs.ratio¶3
The Court of First Instance is directed to make all endeavours to decide the suit expeditiously in accordance with law.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Parmod Goyal, J., oral) — Civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution by plaintiffs (Sandeep Sood and another) in a pending suit for specific performance. The District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar had, by judgment dated 18.03.2026, allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar's order dated 16.03.2024 restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property (sale, mortgage, third party interest) till final disposal of the suit. HELD: the order of the Court of First Instance was in line with statutory provisions, the parties being bound by the principles of lis pendence (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882); the appellate judgment dated 18.03.2026 was set aside; any alienation shall be governed by principles of lis pendence and the respondent-defendant may sell only after obtaining due permission of the Court, subject to the plaintiffs' objections. Trial court directed to decide the suit expeditiously; petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

108

CR-3627-2026 (O&M) Date of decision:01.05.2026

SANDEEP SOOD AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS

SUNIL KUMAR (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. ...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for caveator-respondent.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by petitioners-plaintiffs for setting aside judgment dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, vide which appeal filed by respondent-defendant has been allowed and impugned order dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, whereby respondentdefendant was restrained from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, third party interest as was fully mentioned in headnote of the plaint till final disposal of the suit except otherwise than in due process of law, was set aside.

It is the case of petitioners-plaintiffs that present is a suit for specific performance and if no stay of alienation is granted, they will suffer irreparable loss and would lead to multiplicity of lis especially when prima facie case as well as balance of convenience are in their favour.

Keeping in view nature of suit and prayer as well as provisions

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.05.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CR-3627-2026 (O&M) -2-

of law i.e. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is necessary to protect rights of both the parties in the facts and circumstances of present case. The order passed by learned Court of First Instance was in line with statutory provisions as parties are made bound by principles of lis pendence . Accordingly, impugned judgment dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. It is ordered that alienation, if any, shall be governed by principles of lis pendence and respondent-defendant can only sell the suit property after obtaining due permission of the Court in accordance with law, subject to considerations of objections, if any, raised by petitioners-plaintiffs.

Learned counsel for respondent-defendant submits that suit is pending since the year 2022 and examination of witness of petitionersplaintiffs has not yet been conducted/started.

Learned Court of First Instance is directed to make all endeavours to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.

Present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE

01.05.2026 Sunil Chander

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

SUNIL CHANDER 2026.05.01 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document