Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2006 Date of decision: 17.08.2009 Phoolwati and others ....Petitioners versus Dalmir Singh @ Dalbir Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners filed a suit for declaration with joint possession and for setting aside sale deed dated 28.1.2000 to be fraudulent, illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative and not binding on the rights of the petitioner, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating any portion of the suit land, and from dispossessing or interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the suit land. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion, that the petitioners have failed to prove prima facie case. It was held that the balance of convenience was also not in their favour. Consequently, dismissed the application. In appeal, the injunction application was allowed by restraining the defendant/respondents from alienating the suit land, in Civil Revision No. 4734 of 2006 -2- favour of any person in any manner till the decision of the suit on merits. However, other reliefs claimed were declined. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends, that the learned Courts below have failed to take note that by way of mortgage deed dated 28.2.1997, the land in dispute was mortgaged with possession with defendants No. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.4.00 lac. The mortgage was, therefore, redeemed on 28.1.2000, and mutation sanctioned. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, it was not possible that the land after redemption for a sum of Rs.4.00 lac (Rupees four lac only) would be sold on the same day for Rs.2.5 lac (Rupees two lac fifty thousand). It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that it was the petitioners, who were in possession of the land and merely for want of non-mentioning of date of redemption, the relief could not be denied. By way of interim order, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. In view of the facts stated above, it would be in the interest of justice, if the order of status quo is made absolute during the pendency of the suit. Ordered accordingly. The learned trial Court, however, is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit. Revision disposed of. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 17, 2009 R.S.