Civil Revision No.2689 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2689 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 26, 2011 Natha Singh .....Petitioner v. Maha Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mrs.G.K.Turka, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10801-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2689 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 22.2.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which appeal filed by respondents no.3 and 4 was accepted and order dated 4.6.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala, allowing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit was set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that Bhajan Singh was the owner of the land in dispute. After his death, Summittar Kaur-defendant no.1, i.e., widow of Bhajan Singh, got 1/4th share out of the land left by Bhajan Singh. The remaining 3/4th share was inherited in equal share by his children, i.e, the present petitioner, Civil Revision No.2689 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondent no.7 (plaintiff) and Maha Singh, respondent no.1. Summittar Kaur sold her 1/4th share in the said land and purchased property in dispute from the said proceed. She executed a general power of attorney, dated 5.8.2009 in favour of Smt.Gurmeet Kaur, i.e., wife of respondent no.1- Maha Singh, i.e., her daughter-in-law and on the basis of said power of attorney, Gurmeet Kaur executed three registered sale deeds dated 6.8.2009 in favour of defendants no.4 to 7, out of which, defendants no.4 and 5 are sons of Maha Singh and Gurmeet Kaur, the alleged power of attorney, whereas defendants no.6 and 7 are strangers. Petitioner-plaintiff had challenged the said power of attorney and the subsequent registration of the sale-deeds in the suit on the plea that power of attorney is a result of fraud. It has been even observed by learned trial Court that the fact as to whether power of attorney and the sale deeds are valid or not is to be decided after both the parties would lead their evidence. Parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding alienation of the suit property by learned trial Court and, however, the said order was vacated by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is that it be clarified that if in the property in dispute, right of any third party is created by respondents-defendants no.4 to 7 during pendency of the suit, the same shall be subject to final decision of the suit on merit. Hence, in view of this limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present revision petition is partly accepted and the impugned order passed by learned Courts below is modified to the extent that if any third party interest is created in the land in dispute by respondents-defendants no.4 to 7 during the pendency of the suit, the same shall be subject to final decision in the present suit. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. 26.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.2689 of 2011(O&M) -3-