1 2026:CGHC:22014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 75 of 2026 Vishwanath Jayaswal S/o Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Kesar Parisar Indira Nagar Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant. versus 1 - Harminder Singh Jatal S/o Baikunth Singh Jatal Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village Netnaagar Tahsil Pusour Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Swarup Singh Jatal S/o Amrit Singh Jatal Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Village- And Post- Netnaagar Tahsil Pusour Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Mangal Prasad Sao S/o Ghurau Ram Sao Aged About 49 Years Resident Of House No 43/01 Village And Post - Netnaagar Tahsil Pusour District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellant. : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Res No.4/State : Ms. Akansha Verma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (plaintiff) challenging the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Fifth District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.15A/2025 (Vishwanath Vs. Harminder and Others). By the said order, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract against respondents No. 1 to 3 (defendants). The plaintiff stated that an agreement to sale was executed by respondent No.1 in his favour regarding the subject property for a total consideration of Rs. 12 Lacs. Out of which, Rs. 2,70,000/- was paid in cash and Rs.1,30,000/- was paid through cheque No.963765 in advance. After the execution of the agreement to sale dated 16.06.2025, respondent No.1 sold the subject land through registered sale deed dated 29.07.2025 in favour of respondents No.2 and 3. Hence, the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of nullity of the sale deed dated 29.07.2025 and a direction to respondent No. 1 to execute the registered sale deed in his favour, along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed their reply before the Court below denying the prayers of the plaintiff. 4. After considering the contentions of both parties, the learned Fifth District Judge, Raigarh, by the impugned order, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. The dismissal order was passed on the grounds that the necessary requirements for an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC i.e. a prima facie case for irreparable loss, and balance of convenience were not 3 found in favour of the plaintiff. The Court also observed that the plaintiff failed to establish a case for temporary injunction to restrain defendants No. 2 and 3 from further alienation of the subject property until the disposal of the civil suit. However, it was observed that if defendants No.2 and 3 transfer the subject property, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, provides provisions to protect the interests of the plaintiff. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant (plaintiff) submits that, at this juncture, a direction may be issued to the effect that any transfer made by respondents (defendants) No. 1 to 3 in respect of the subject property shall be subject to the outcome of the final judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents available with the revision. 7. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the interests of the parties if the subject suit property is transferred during the pendency of the civil suit. For the sake of brevity, the aforesaid provision is reproduced hereunder:- "52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.— During the [pendency] in any Court having authority [within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir] or established beyond such limits] by [the Central Government ***], of [any] suit or proceeding [which is not collusive and] in. which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. 4 [Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order, has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.]" 8. The doctrine of lis pendens, established in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, stipulates that during the pendency of any suit or proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party under any decree or order that may be made therein. Section 52 does not render a transfer made during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void, it only serves to ensure that such transfer shall be subject to the rights of the parties to such suit as may be finally determined in the suit. A pendente lite purchaser would be entitled to suffer the same legal consequences and would be bound by the decision of the Court. 9. Thus, considering the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and prima facie facts of the case, this Court is of the view that if the subject property is alienated or transferred by the respondents/defendants, then such transfer shall be subject to the aforesaid provision and outcome of the final judgment and decree, and the purchaser would be entitled to or suffer 5 the same rights and liabilities as his predecessors-in-title and vendors, as may be finally determined by the Court. 10. Therefore, having considered the contention of learned for the appellant and observation made herein-above, this revision petition is disposed of upholding the impugned order dated 02.02.2026. 11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay