-1- Civil Revision No.104 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 10, 2011. Civil Revision No.104 of 2011 (O&M). Savita Devi ... Petitioner VERSUS Sulochna Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by both the Courts below whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit filed by them challenging the validity of the -2- Civil Revision No.104 of 2011 (O&M). gift deed dated 11.20.2010 allegedly executed by their (plaintiffs') father Des Raj (defendant-respondent No.3) in favour of petitioner-defendant and defendant-respondent No.4 in respect of the property in dispute was allowed. The plaintiffs challenged the said gift deed on the ground that their father Des Raj (defendant-respondent No.3), who was suffering from mental depression, never executed any gift deed in favour of the petitioner-defendant (daughter-in-law of Des Raj - defendant) and defendant-respondent No.4. The plaintiffs-respondents Nos.1 and 2, who are daughters of Des Raj (defendant-respondent No.3) further alleged that the suit property being ancestral, Des Raj could not gift away the same. As the suit is pending and the truth will surface only after both the parties lead evidence, both the Courts below restrained the petitioner-defendant and defendant-respondent No.4 from alienating the property in dispute in any manner till the final disposal of the suit. No illegality can be found in the impugned orders. The plaintiffs-respondents have a prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in their favour. If the defendants in whose favour the gift deed has allegedly been made by defendant Des Raj, who is father of the plaintiffs, are not restrained from alienating the suit property till the final disposal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs, they (plaintiffs) will suffer an irreparable loss. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in the impugned -3- Civil Revision No.104 of 2011 (O&M). orders passed by both the Courts below. This revision is, accordingly, hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 10, 2011. JUDGE ak