C.R. No. 6904 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6904 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2011 Pushpa Rani ...Petitioner versus Chiranji Lal ....Respondent Present:- Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate with Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RITU BAHRI J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana (Annexure P-5), vide which the interim application filed by the respondent-plaintiff in CS No. 23 dated 03.02.2005 was allowed and order dated 15.09.2011 of the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (Annexure P-6), vide which the appeal No. 57 filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 17.09.2010. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property as per sale deed dated 12.11.2001 bearing wasika No. 1076 registered on 28.11.2001 and gift dated 26.11.2001 bearing wasika No. 1056 registered on 26.11.2001 are illegal null and void and are liable to be set aside. A prayer for grant of permanent injunction C.R. No. 6904 of 2011 (O&M) -2- was made by the plaintiff-respondent restraining the defendant from interfering in the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the properties. There is also a matrimonial litigation is going on between the present petitioner and respondent. In the year 1967, the plaintiff-respondent got married with Chand Rani. Out of this wedlock, three daughters namely Geeta Sharma, Reeta Sharma, Pooja Sharma and one son namely Devinder Kumar were born. Chand Rani expired on 04.05.1990. After the death of Chand Rani, the plaintiff-respondent contracted the second marriage with the defendant in November 1992 and out of this wedlock one daughter namely Kiran was born. The plaintiff executed will on 12.11.2001. The plaintiff was under the impression that the will is in possession of the defendant and he will remain owner of the property till his lifetime and after his death, this property is to go to the defendant and daughter Miss Kiran Sharma. The relationship between the husband and wife became worse and thereafter, petitioner filed a petition on 09.03.2006 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance. This petition is pending for consideration. Thereafter, plaintiff-respondent agreed to execute registered will in the name of the defendant-petitioner and their daughter Kiran Sharma. But the defendant in connivance with deed writer and marginal witnesses managed to prepare certain forged documents, got prepared one sale deed in her favour, vide tow sale deeds dated 12.11.2001 and 18.11.2001 and one gift deed dated 26.11.2001.On the basis of these documents, the defendant is moving to the revenue authorities to grab the property. This petition was dismissed and defendant-respondent was C.R. No. 6904 of 2011 (O&M) -3- restrained from alienating or parting with the possession of the suit property during the pendency of the present suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-respondent filed appeal. The same was also dismissed, vide order dated 15.09.2011 by observing that at this stage, the suit property is liable to be preserved, so that third property right are not created, which may lead to multiplicity of litigation. In view of the above facts, orders of both the Courts below suffer from no illegality or infirmity Accordingly, civil revision is dismissed. November 11, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE