C. R. No. 4871 OF 2007 (O&M). ****** Kewal Singh & another vs Jarnail Kaur & others Present : Mr.S.S.Siao, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Jaspal Kaur Ghurna, Advocate for respondent No.1. ******* Though the main case is fixed for 11.3.2008, at the request of counsel for the parties, the hearing of the main case is pre-poned to today. The petitioners impugn the order, dated 31.7.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby their appeal has been partly allowed, and the order, dated 21.11.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura has been modified. Counsel for the petitioners states that though the appellate Court has modified the trial Court's order by confining the injunction to 10.1/2 biswas, allegedly possessed by respondent No.1, it erred by placing reliance upon a khasra girdawari which was altered, without notice to the petitioners and without impleading all the co-sharers. It is submitted that the petitioners apprehend that during the pendency of the suit, respondent No.1 would alienate the property, thus, causing further complications in the already pending dispute. Counsel for respondent No.1, however, submits that the khasra girdawari, reflects respondent No.1 in possession over 10.1/2 biswas. The legality of the correction in the khasra girdawari would be determined by the civil Court in the pending suit. At the stage of injunction, it cannot be opined that the change in the khasra girdawari was legal or not. It C.R.No.4871 of 2007 : 2 : is further asserted that the petitioners' apprehension with respect to the sale is unfounded. Even otherwise, as respondent No.1 is absolute owner of her property, no restraint can be placed upon her rights more so, where the suit has been filed by her. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The appellate Court rightly confined the injunction to 10.1/2 biswas, possessed by respondent No.1, as per corrected khasra girdawari. Whether the contents of the khasra girdawari are incorrect is a matter to be determined during the trial. At this stage, it would be inappropriate to record any opinion as to the legality of this entry in the revenue record. Even otherwise, the petitioners have failed to place on record any evidence as to their possession with respect to 10.1/2 biswas. As regards the petitioners' prayer that respondent No.1 be restrained from alienating the suit land, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek any other appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) February 01, 2008. JUDGE `kk'