Civil Revision No. 3853 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3853 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.8.2010 Bogha Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Manjit Kaur and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rajinder Goel and Shri R.K. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 7.12.2007 whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff-petitioners was dismissed and the order in appeal dated 18.3.2009, whereby the said order was affirmed. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the parties exchanged their land situated in Punjab and Rajasthan and that the said exchange was recognized in a decree dated 8.8.1985 passed in Civil Suit No. 420 dated 12.6.1985. However, the revenue record was not corrected in respect of the land measuring 21 kanals 15 marlas, Civil Revision No. 3853 of 2009 (O&M) [2] wherein the defendants were reflected as owners though the said land fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Since the said land was also exchanged and came to the share of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs sought ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property and also from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The said application was dismissed vide the impugned order, as mentioned above. Any alienation of the suit property effected by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, is subject to doctrine of lispendens. Therefore, any alienation effected by the defendants will not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Courts below declining ad-interim injunction in respect of alienation. The plaintiffs claim to be owners and in possession of the land measuring 21 kanals 15 marlas. The defendants claim to be in possession as co-sharers in the said land. In view of the said fact, the interest of justice would be met if the parties are directed to maintain status-quo regarding possession during such time the suit is pending. Ordered accordingly. With the said modification in the impugned orders, the revision petition stands disposed of. Needless to say that any observation made in the proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is only for the decision of such application and that the civil suit shall be decided by the trial Court, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made herein. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 30.8.2010 Civil Revision No. 3853 of 2009 (O&M) [3] ds