VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by way of present revision petition has challenged the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahr as well as the order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr declining the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code).
(2.) THE petitioner had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.5.2004 regarding the property in dispute or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code seeking ad-interim injunction on the ground that defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit had entered into an agreement dated 25.5.2004 to sell the property in dispute and it was agreed that the sale was to be executed on 18.5.2005. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff was that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he was still ready and willing to do so. It was further pleaded that on 18.5.2005 he remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nawanshar for the purpose of getting the sale deed executed but defendants No. 1 and 2 did not turn up, whereas defendants No. 3 and 4 in the suit claimed to have purchased the property on 20.5.2005. It was further claimed that on the basis of the sale deed the defendants were threatening to alienate the property and change the nature of the property and create encumbrance over the property in dispute for which they have no right.
(3.) REPLY to the application was filed and it was alleged that the agreement to sell did not create any title and the transaction made would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens. It was claimed that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in his favour.;