Civil Revision No. 1073 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1073 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 19 , 2010 Gurlal Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Harbaksh Kaur and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against the orders of the Courts below declining the temporary relief of stay of alienation to the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondents are all co-sharers of land in village Kala Tibba. As per the petitioner the respondent No.1 and her husband got manipulated certain entries in the Jambandi for the year 1978- 79 whereby their share in the land was fraudulently increased. Both the Courts have noticed that the allegations of the petitioner have yet to be proved and till such time co-sharers cannot be restrained from dealing with the property in a husband like manner and that the interest of the petitioner would be adequately guarded by the doctrine of lis pendens. Learned Civil Revision No. 1073 of 2010(O&M) 2 counsel has referred to the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 and has argued that a perusal of this Jamabandi as compared to the succeeding Jamabandi clearly shows that there is an unexplained accretion in the amount of land owned by respondent No.1 and her husband. He has further argued that even in the written statement no explanation was given for the said accretion. He thus argues that it is a clear case of forgery and that in these circumstances the respondents should be restrained from alienating the property in dispute. In my opinion the approach of the Courts below cannot be said to be so manifestly illegal or corroded by such material irregularity as to be liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in order to ensure that any hard earned victory which the petitioner may get is not eroded by alienation, it is made clear that if any transaction is made with regard to the property in dispute, there shall be a clear stipulation in any instrument of alienation that any proposed alienation will be made only by informing the Court about the proposed alienees so that the petitioner may implead them if so advised. This, of course, would be in addition to the protection granted by the doctrine of lis pendens. With these observations this petition is disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 19, 2010 sunita