Civil Revision No.3548 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3548 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:06.05.2010 Balbir Kaur & anr. .... petitioners Versus Bikramjit Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vikas Bali,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the caveator-respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): CMs No.11581-82-CII of 2010 Civil Misc.applications are allowed subject to just exceptions. CMs disposed of. Civil Revision No.3548 of 2009(O & M) This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 18.05.2009 passed by the Lower Appellate Court, whereby appeal filed by the respondents was accepted and the order dated 22.03.2007 passed by the trial Court granting ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners was set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was dismissed. Notice of motion. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, who is present on behalf of the caveators accepts notice. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is the estate of one Swaran Singh s/o Amar Singh. The petitioners are claiming Civil Revision No.3548 of 2009(O & M) 2 to be the wife and adopted daughter of aforesaid Swaran Singh, whereas defendants/respondents are disputing the aforesaid facts and have set up their right to inherit the estate of Swaran Singh on the basis of a registered Will in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the documents placed on record has vehemently argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that petitioners are not strangers to the deceased and are, in fact, wife and adopted daughter, respectively, whereas Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently submitted before this Court that in fact the present case, itself, is not maintainable as in an earlier suit dated 08.05.2003 titled as “Balbir Kaur & anr.versus Bikramjit Singh & anr., the stay as prayed in this case, was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted before this Court that the suit is at the trial stage and evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioners is being recorded. Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in fact the petitioners are delaying the matter as despite granting many opportunities, he has not concluded the evidence and therefore a suitable direction be issued to decide the suit in a time bound frame. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within one year from today. Till then, status quo as existing today shall be maintained by the parties. Disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 06.05.2010 neenu