IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3441 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 28, 2011. Harvinder Singh and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Jasvir Kaur alias Sharanjit Kaur and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate for respondent no.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 13.04.2011, Annexure P8 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide which appeal filed by present petitioner-defendant aginst order dated 12.02.2011 allowing application of respondent-plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. CR No.3441 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants is that even as per case of respondent-plaintiff, present petitioners are also sons of deceased –Gurbachan Kaur, inheritance of whose property is in dispute. It is further contended that even if at this stage Will in favour of present petitioners is not accepted, they are also having right to inherit the property in dispute as per their share alongwith respondent-plaintiff and other legal heirs of deceased –Gurbachan Kaur and hence, they are having right to alienate the property as per their share. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that petitioners may alienate their 1/7 share each only in the property in dispute and however, they are having no right to alienate the specific portion. In view of the aforementioned facts, the present revision petition is partly accepted and the impugned order passed by learned courts below is modified to the extent that present petitioners may alienate their 1/7 share each in the property in dispute without selling specific portion of the joint property. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by the trial Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 28, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 2