IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 118 CR-3352-2025 Date of Decision:16.03.2026 Rajinder Singh and Others …..Pe..oners Vs. Jagwant Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate and Mr. Varun Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) On 28.05.2025, following order was passed: “It is contended by learned counsel for the peoners that suit for specific performance filed by the plainffs – Jagwant Singh and Amandeep Singh (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) against sole defendant – Ranjit Singh (respondent No.3 herein through his legal representaves) was dismissed by the trial Court on 04.01.2012. Appeal against the said judgment was filed by the plainffs a8er the expiry of the limitaon period on 04.12.2012. However, in between, the vendor – defendant (Ranjit Singh) had already sold the part of the suit property to the present peoners, namely, Rajinder Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Kulwant Singh. The appeal was allowed on 29.01.2015 and decree for specific performance was granted. Though Ranjit Singh had preferred RSA No.5445 of 2015 before this Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.09.2018. The peoners herein moved an applicaon to recall the said order dated 21.09.2018, but this Court, by way of order NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.16 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3352-2025 -2- dated 05.08.2022 (Annexure P-5) gave liberty to the peoners to approach the execung Court to file necessary objecons and the applicaon was dismissed as withdrawn. Objecons as filed by the peoners before the execung Court were dismissed on 17.04.2025, against which the peoners filed appeal before the Appellate Court. Although, learned Addional District Judge, Sangrur admiAed the appeal vide order dated 16.05.2025, but declined to stay the operaon of the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-7). In the meanme, the execung Court by way of impugned order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) has appointed his Reader as a Local Commissioner for execuon/registraon of the sale deed in favour of the plainffs. Peoners have now approached this Court against the denial of stay by the First Appellate Court despite the fact that appeal had been admiAed. Learned counsel for the peoners submits that since the peoners had purchased the property a8er dismissal of the suit and prior to the filing of the appeal, therefore, the peoners are the bona fide purchasers and they could not be held to be a purchaser pendente lite. Noce of moon for 07.01.2026. In the meanme, further proceedings before the execung Court shall remain stayed.” Both the counsels have now appeared. Applicaon for staying the operaon of the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 is sll pending before the Appellate Court. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and a8er hearing learned counsel for the pares, the present revision peon is hereby disposed of with the direcon to the concerned Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal as filed by the peoners herein against the order dated 17.04.2025. Till the disposal of the appeal by the first Appellate Court, the pares shall maintain status NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.16 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3352-2025 -3- quo regarding the property in dispute. The Appellate Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal within next three months from the date of receipt of order of this Court. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE March 16, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.16 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document