IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-9518-2025 Date of decision: 16.01.2026 Smt. Rajeshwari Yadav ...Pe""oner Versus Mr. Jawahar Singh Yadav and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bhar, Advocate for the pe""oner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Pe""oner is the plain"ff in Civil Suit bearing CNR-HRGR021- 003465-2020, "tled Rajeshwari Yadav vs. Jawahar Singh Yadav and others, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram. The suit has been ins"tuted for declara"on and consequen"al relief of permanent injunc"on. Along with the suit, an applica"on under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking temporary injunc"on. 2. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 15.10.2022 (Annexure P-5), partly allowed the applica"on and restrained the defendants from crea"ng any third-party interest in the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred an appeal, which came to be allowed by the learned Addi"onal District Judge, Gurugram, vide order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-6), resul"ng in vaca"on of the interim injunc"on. 3. The present revision pe""on has been filed by the plain"ff, assailing the aforesaid appellate order on the ground that the learned Appellate Court erred in apprecia"on of facts and wrongly declined the relief of temporary injunc"on. 4. Learned counsel for the pe""oner has been heard at length. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
 



 
The paper-book has been perused carefully. 5. The undisputed factual posi"on emerging from the record is that the pe""oner-plain"ff had executed a registered sale deed dated 26.07.2019 in favour of the respondents-defendants in respect of the property in dispute for a total considera"on of ₹29,94,750/-. The sale considera"on was paid through cheque No. 069510 dated 26.07.2019, which was subsequently dishonoured on presenta"on. Consequent upon dishonour of the cheque, the pe""oner ini"ated proceedings under Sec"on 138 of the Nego"able Instruments Act, 1881. During the pendency of those proceedings, respondent No.1 tendered a demand draE dated 05.08.2020 for the en"re sale considera"on amount of ₹29,94,750/-, which the pe""oner admiFedly declined to accept. 6. Instead of accep"ng the sale considera"on or seeking its recovery through appropriate civil remedies, the pe""oner ins"tuted the present suit seeking a declara"on that the sale deed itself was not binding, coupled with a prayer to restrain the respondents from raising construc"on or aliena"ng the property. 7. The learned Appellate Court has rightly observed that once a registered sale deed is executed, "tle to the immovable property stands conveyed to the vendee, unless the sale deed is set aside on legally sustainable grounds such as fraud, misrepresenta"on, coercion, or want of authority, none of which, prima facie, are made out at this stage. 8. Non-payment or delayed payment of sale considera"on, by itself, does not invalidate a completed sale nor does it divest the vendee of "tle. At best, it furnishes the vendor with a personal remedy for recovery of money, but does not revive any proprietary right in the property already conveyed. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
 



 
9. Significantly, even aEer the respondents tendered the en"re sale considera"on through a demand draE, the pe""oner consciously refused to accept the same. Having declined to receive the considera"on and having allowed the sale deed to remain opera"ve, the pe""oner cannot, in equity or law, claim any subsis"ng right in the property so as to restrain the lawful owners from dealing with it. 10. The three founda"onal requirements for grant of temporary injunc"on—(i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable loss, are conspicuously absent in favour of the pe""oner. Once ownership has passed to the respondents, the pe""oner cannot demonstrate any prima facie proprietary right, nor can the balance of convenience "lt in her favour. 11. The learned Appellate Court has thus commiFed no perversity, illegality, or jurisdic"onal error in seHng aside the order of the Trial Court. The appellate interference was fully jus"fied, par"cularly in view of the seFled principle that injunc"on cannot be used to cloud or paralyse the rights flowing from a registered conveyance. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Addi"onal District Judge, Gurugram. The revision pe""on is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 16.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document