IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR NO.536 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: February 1, 2007 Niranjan Singh ….Petitioner VERSUS Amar Singh and another ….Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL PRESENT: Shri Kranti Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Viney Mittal,J.(Oral). The defendant is petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved against the orders passed by the Courts below on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Courts below have directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to alienation and not to raise any construction till the final decision of the suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the various observations made by the Courts below, I do not find any justification to interfere in the present revision petition. No case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court is made out. Dismissed. February 1, 2007 (Viney Mittal) KD Judge