CR No. 3317 of 2010. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 3317 of 2010 Date of decision:- 20.12.2010 Major Tarlochan Singh and others. ....Petitioner. Vs. Gian Singh and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7. Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 8 to 15. ****** HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 06.02.2010, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property was partly allowed. The dispute is regarding estate of Bakhtawar Singh, who was said to be a 'karta' of joint Hindu Family property, of which the parties to the suit are said to be the members. Bakhtawar Singh died on 30.01.1994 leaving behind four sons, CR No. 3317 of 2010. 2 three daughters and widow Sant Kaur. Sant Kaur also died on 20.05.2003. Learned trial court has passed an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo regarding the share of Sant Kaur and the request of the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from alienating the other land in dispute was declined. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the case is now at the final stage and therefore, the order of status- quo passed by this Court while issuing notice of motion on 19.05.2010 should be directed to be maintained. The dispute is regarding estate of Bakhtawar Singh. Such dispute regarding shares of the parties is to be decided by the Civil Court. However, any alienation during the pendency of the suit is hit by the doctrine of lis pendence and the vendee from any of the parties to the suit will not acquire better title than what his vendor had in the suit property. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 20.12.2010 JUDGE aj