- (1.) The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 15 kanals 3 marlas @ Rs. 11.5 lac per killa. Having failed to perform the said agreement dated 10.6.2009, Navtej Singh-respondent had to file suit for specific performance. Alongwith the suit, an application for restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property was also filed. Both the courts granted injunction in favour of the respondent. Now the petitioner has come up in revision.
(2.) The first appellate court, while granting injunction, placed reliance on the judgments Jeeto Versus Joginder Singh and others, 2008 4 CivCC 148 and Maharaja Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot Versus Baldev Dass, 2005 1 CivCC 430, wherein it was observed that temporary injunction cannot be declined on the ground that alienation would be subject to law of lis pendens and construction raised will be at his own risk. The relevant observations in Baldev Dass's case reads as under:- "Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and untill a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such case of irreparable loss is made out except contending that the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the respondent should be permitted to put the scheduled property to better use. We do not think, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower appellate court and the High Court were justified in permitting the respondent to change the nature of property by putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of the property, whatever may be the condition on which the same is done. In the event of the appellant's claim being found baseless ultimately, it is always open to the respondent to claim damages or, in an appropriate case, the court may itself award damages for the loss suffered, if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders are set aside and the order of the trial court is restored."
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment delivered in Rita Toor Versus Logical Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2010 2 CivCC 616. In this case also, in a suit for specific performance, the court had observed that temporary injunction cannot be declined on the basis that alienation will be subject to law of lis pendens.;