IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2466 of 2010 Date of decision: 19th July, 2010 Jagjit Singh … Petitioner Versus Surjit Kaur alias Bhayia and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. In the present revision petition, the order dated 31st March, 2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa, whereby petitioner-defendant to the suit was restrained from alienating the suit property, has been challenged along with the order dated 20th November, 2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the appellate Court whereby the impugned order (Annexure P-2) was affirmed. Surjit Kaur alias Bhayia, widow of Amar Singh, had field a suit claiming that her husband had transferred 36 kanals and 14 marlas of land in her name vide a gift deed dated 6th February, 1968. It was further pleaded that she inherited 14 marlas of land after the death of her husband. In the suit, it was prayed that exchange deed relied by the defendant be set aside, as the same was executed in connivance with the revenue authorities, as a result of fabrication. It was further prayed in the suit that the 1/3rd share of the land transferred by Gurdev Singh in favour Civil Revision No.2466 of 2010 of his son vide decree dated 19th January, 1993 be also set aside, as the respondent-plaintiff had no knowledge about the same. The trial Court, relying upon the gift deed and various other accompanying circumstances, held that at this stage due credence could not be granted to an un-registered exchange deed, projected by the defendants to the suit, and thus, restrained the defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner during the pendency of the suit. This order was also affirmed by the appellate Court below on the ground that the case was pending for evidence of the petitioner-defendant and 17th December, 2009 was the last opportunity granted to the defendants to conclude evidence. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to state the status of the suit. Even otherwise, this Court finds no infirmity in the orders passed by both the courts below. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 19, 2010 rps 2