Civil Revision No. 4743 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4743 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.1.2010 Rachhpal Singh .. Petitioner v. Surinder Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 30.4.2009, passed by the learned court below, in an application filed by the respondents- plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim stay of alienation of property by the petitioner- defendant during the pendency of the suit. The property in dispute was owned by father of the parties, namely, Tarlok Singh, who died on 14.6.2003 leaving behind eight sons, two daughters and a widow. The mutation of inheritance was entered ignoring the will projected by respondent No. 1. Thereafter, even the mother of the petitioner, i.e., widow of Tarlok Singh also died in June, 2008 and her share was also divided amongst the legal heirs. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a civil suit on 16.7.2008 claiming ownership of the property on the basis of the Will executed by deceased- Tarlok Singh, in terms of which the petitioner was not entitled to any share. In the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, both the courts below directed that as share of the parties in the property are in dispute, it would not be appropriate if the petitioner is permitted to alienate his share of the property, which was transferred in his favour in terms of the mutation of inheritance by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. In my opinion, no illegality can be found with the order impugned, considering the fact that share of the petitioner in the property is in dispute. In case during the pendency of the suit, his share in the property is sold and ultimately the will projected by respondent No. 1 is upheld, the same will result in multiplicity of litigation as rights of third person will step in. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same Civil Revision No. 4743 of 2009 [2] is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner in the present case is 75 years of age, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit and conclude the same within one year. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.1.2010 mk