IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 1838 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 13, 2011 BALDEV SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS GURMEJ SINGH KALSI & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. CL Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Hazara Singh was not in a fit state of mind to execute the sale deeds and, therefore, the sale deeds are result of cheating and forgery. On such contention, it has been pleaded that order of discharge dated 27.10.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, which has been impugned in this petition, is illegal. 2 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 No legal evidence has been brought on record to show that Hazara Singh was not in a fit state of mind to execute the sale deeds. Even before this Court, no material has been placed on record, for consideration, so as to conclude that Hazara Singh Criminal Revision No. 1838 of 2010 2 was not in a fit state of mind to execute the sale deeds. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that any piece of evidence, which was material, has not been considered by the trial court. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show misreading of any piece of evidence, which has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 5 In view of the above, no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 6 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. July 13, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?