Civil Revision No.96 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.96 of 2008 Date of Decision:24.03.2009 Maya Devi ....petitioner Versus Prem Kumar & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Tribhawan Singla,Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Sukhpal Kaur, Advocate for respondent Usha Rani,No.(vi) **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Barnala and the order dated 14.08.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Barnala, respectively, whereby application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a 90 years old lady and the mother of the respondents. She has filed the present suit for possession on the averments that her husband Jagan Nath was owner of the suit property who died on 14.06.1998 leaving behind her and three sons. It was further averred that on 12.03.2005 the respondents have forcibly taken possession of the suit property. The parties are claiming the property in dispute on the basis of Will dated 03.06.1998 registered on 05.06.1998 executed by Jagan Nath in favour of the respondents and Will dated 10.06.1998 Civil Revision No.96 of 2008 2 executed by Jagan Nath in favour of the present petitioner. It has been further averred that respondent Ramesh Kumar had entered into an agreement dated 12.07.2004 with Veera Wanti for selling share of the property in dispute and a Civil Suit No.154 of 28.04.2005 filed by Veera Wanti in the Court of Civil Judge,(Jr.Divn.), Barnala is pending. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts and averments made in the civil suit and the present petition, it is ordered that alienation if any, made by the respondents, shall be subject to the decision of the main suit. With these observations, revision petition stands disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 24.03.2009 neenu