JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Plaintiff Hari Singh has filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Plaintiff has filed suit for possession of the suit land by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.10.2005 and writing dated 15.5.2006 executed by defendants no. 1 to 3. Sale deeds by defendants no. 1 to 3 in favour of defendants no. 4 to 6 regarding sale of substantial part of the suit land have also been challenged. 3. Plaintiff moved application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner and from transferring possession thereof in favour of any person except the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalalabad (West) vide order dated 22.2.2008 partly allowed the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from further alienating the suit property till final disposal of the suit. However, no temporary injunction regarding transfer of possession was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff feeling satisfied with the said order did not challenge the same. However, defendants no. 4 to 6 preferred appeal against the aforesaid order of the trial court. Learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned judgment dated 13.6.2009 set aside the order dated 22.2.2008 of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. The only controversy in the instant revision petition is regarding temporary injunction against alienation of the suit land by defendants during pendency of the suit because temporary injunction regarding possession as sought by the plaintiff was not even granted by the trial court and said order of the trial court was not challenged by the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 points out that respondent no. 3 has already sold part land out of the suit land. 8. As regards temporary injunction against alienation, there is only alleged agreement to sell with writing for extension of date of execution of sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendants no. 1 to 3 were owners of the suit land out of which they have sold substantial part of the suit land to defendants no. 4 to 6. On the other hand, defendants no. 1 to 3 were owners of the suit land out of which they have sold substantial part of the suit land to defendants no. 4 to 6. The plaintiff wants temporary injunction against further alienation of the suit land to avoid multiplicity of litigation and other complications. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if defendants are directed that in the event of alienation of the suit land during the pendency of the suit, they shall specifically mention in the deed of alienation about pendency of the suit so that the alienee may not take the plea of being bonafide purchaser. In case of alienation, the defendants shall also inform the trial court within 30 days of the alienation along with copy of the alienation deed so that the plaintiff may take necessary steps if any required. It is ordered accordingly. Respondent no. 3 (defendant no. 6) shall place a copy of the alienation deed, which he has already executed, in the trial court within one month from today. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Nothing observed herein above shall be taken to be expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. --------------