Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3116 (PNJ)

Rattan Singh v. Iqbal Singh

2006-08-03

SURYA KANT

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. The petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration against Iqbal Singh and some other defendants to the effect that the said Iqbal Singh had no right to alienate or dispose of the subject property in any manner. Along with the suit, the petitioner also sought ad-interim injunction which was however, declined by both the Courts. The petitioner then approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No.509 of 2004 for the grant of ad-interim injunction. Without issuing any notice to the respondents (defendants) in the said civil revision, this Court disposed of the same on January 29, 2004 with the following directions: Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of with directions to the defendants to insert a stipulation with regard to the pendency of the present suit, in the conveyance deed in case any alienation is sought to be made by them during the pendency of the suit. Keeping in view the nature of the litigation between the parties, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit. 2. Alleging non-compliance of the above-stated order, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed this contempt petition. 3. In response to the show cause notice, Iqbal Singh-respondent has filed his affidavit dated 2.8.2006 which is taken on record. As per the averments made in the affidavit, three conveyance deeds in respect of the subject land were executed on 21.1.2004, 29.1.2004 and 8.7.2004. 4. It is obvious from the above-mentioned dates that the directions issued by this Court on January 29, 2004 could not have been possibly complied with at the time of execution of the conveyance deeds dated 21.1.2004 and 29.1.2004. 5. So far as the 3rd conveyance deed dated 8.7.2004 is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the order dated 29.1.2004 passed by this Court was never communicated to them and/or brought to their knowledge. 5. So far as the 3rd conveyance deed dated 8.7.2004 is concerned, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the order dated 29.1.2004 passed by this Court was never communicated to them and/or brought to their knowledge. On the basis of the averments made in para 3 of the affidavit, it is argued that a copy of the aforesaid order was first time produced by the petitioner-plaintiff before the trial Court on 20.7.2004 only and as such the respondent had no knowledge thereof and, thus, could not comply with the same at the time of execution of 3rd conveyance deed on After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that seriously disputed questions in relation to the communication of the order dated 29.1.2004 are involved in this petition, the same is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to implead the vendees, if already not impleaded by him, by amending the suit. 6. Needless to say that the doctrine of lis-pendense shall always hold the field and the conveyance deed dated 8.7.2004 having been executed during the pendency of the civil suit, shall also abide by the final outcome of the civil suit. Petition is disposed of. Rule stands discharged. .