IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5716 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 13th July, 2009. Karambir & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate Versus Ramanand & Ors. Respondents through Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 6.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Rewari whereby the parties were directed to maintain status-quo, as well as against the order dated 26.5.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, affirming the aforesaid order. The ad-interim injunction has been granted by the Courts below in a suit for Permanent Injunction filed by the respondent – plaintiffs, inter-alia, claiming that the disputed property comprising Khasra No. 388[3-8] is a Gair Mumkin Gate and was a joint holding of the parties, out of which they had purchased share of Ram Pal - defendant No.6 vide registered sale deed dated 4.4.2002. On the other hand, the petitioner – defendants, have returned the plaintiffs' claim by averring that Ram Pal - defendant No. 6 had no right or title in the property in dispute and the sale deed executed by him in favour of the respondent – plaintiffs is also null and void and not binding upon the rights of the petitioner - defendants. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am of the considered view that the jurisdictional limitation of a revision Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in the impugned orders. The core issue to be gone into by the court, provided that the parties raise it, would be as to whether or not defendant No. 6 – Ram Pal had any share in the property in dispute which he could have transferred in favour of the respondent – plaintiffs by way of a registered sale deed. Since the respondent – plaintiffs are claiming ownership on the basis of a registered sale deed which has remained un-challenged so far, the Courts below have rightly followed the most appropriate course in directing the parties to maintain status-quo till the decision of the suit. Dismissed. July 13, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE