Supreme & Paige

Whether there was any substantial reasons for the High Court to base its entire decision on the deposition of this witness?


  1. The Release Deed and order of temporary injunction were executed and passed on the same day i.e. 28.07.2003
  2. The suit for permanent injunction was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn so the protection afforded by the order of temporary injunction would subsume with the dismissal of the main suit.
  3. In the deposition and cross- examination of PW-7, there was no admission that he had informed respondents 1-2 about the order of temporary injunction in favour of the appellant.

Contentions/Submissions of appellant:

That the appellant had paid Rs. 2.50 lakhs as earnest money to respondent no. 3.the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction on 21.07.2003 and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 28.07.2003. As on 21.07.2003 the doctrine of lis pendens would take its effect.


Contentions/ submissions of respondent:

Respondents 1-2 have also claimed they have made substantial alterations to the property by investing money the Release Deed dated 28.07.2003 executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 4 and the Sale Deed dated 16.06.2004 executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondents.



The High Court though has upheld the concurrent findings as to the execution of the agreement to sell, and that the appellant had paid Rs. 2.50 lakhs as earnest money to respondent no.3. Consequently, the High Court gave the alternate relief to the appellant. The transaction qua the suit property was executed by the respondents after the appellant obtained an order of temporary injunction from the Trial Court, hence the entire transactions would be hit by lis pendens given under Section 52 of the Act of Lastly, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 never preferred any appeal against the judgements passed by the lower courts the High Court concluded that respondents 1-2 were bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and deserved protection under Section 41 of the Act of 1882.


Principle / ratio:

The doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation. The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums. The principle is based on equity and a good conscience.



Appeal allowed



Case title: Chander Bhan  Through Lr Sher Singh Versus Mukhtiar Singh & Ors.

Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2991 OF 2024



Name – Parul

University – Dav university Jalandhar

Semester– 6th

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top