Civil Revision No.1371 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1371 of 2008 Date of decision: September 10, 2008 Ram Kishan and another …..PETITIONERS Versus Dhan Singh and others …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr S.K.Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit against the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5, wherein they sought a declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, they filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying therein that the defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property or from changing the nature of the suit land. Their application was, however, dismissed by learned trial Court. They challenged the said decision by filing an appeal, which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gurgaon and it was ordered that status quo regarding alienation and nature of the suit property be maintained by the parties till the decision of the suit. The petitioners, thereafter, filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents had sought a declaration that the Will dated Civil Revision No.1371 of 2008 -2- 22.3.2004, said to have been executed by Smt Mewa Devi, was a forged and fabricated document as she was sick and had not left her house two or three months before her death on 14.4.2004. She never went to the Office of Sub Registrar to execute the Will. On the basis of forged and fabricated Will, the defendants got the share of mother of the plaintiffs mutated in their favour. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners has further submitted that the Will in question was attested by Ranbir Singh, one of the plaintiffs and therefore, no question arises that the Will was a result of fraud or fabrication. Under these circumstances, the defendants- petitioners had every right to alienate the suit property or change its nature. Therefore, the present revision be accepted and order passed by learned lower appellate Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has submitted that though the defendants have taken the aforementioned stand in their written statement, but the plaintiffs have yet to file their replication. They would explain therein as to under what circumstances, Ranbir Singh had attested the Will in question. Moreover, mere attestation of the Will by Ranbir Singh-plaintiff did not imply that the other plaintiffs, namely, Dhan Singh and Smt. Krishna were not aggrieved of the execution of the Will. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by learned lower Courts. It would be a matter to be adjudicated upon by learned trial Court as to whether the Will, said to have been executed by Smt Mewa Devi was result of forgery or fabrication or that it had been validly Civil Revision No.1371 of 2008 -3- executed by Smt Mewa Devi, besides her son Ranbir Singh, one of the plaintiffs, signing and attesting the same. At the same time, the defendants cannot be allowed to alienate the suit property or change its nature. However, imposing of such harsh conditions on the defendants- petitioners, which are likely to continue for a long period of time so as to await the decision of the trial Court, Will not be conducive to the interest of the defendants. The case is now fixed before learned trial Court on 16.9.2008 for replication and framing of issues. Plaintiffs-respondents have already prepared their replication, as informed by their counsel. They shall file the same before learned trial Court on 16.9.2008. Resultantly, the present revision is being disposed of by directing learned trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case in an expeditious manner. Issues be framed within a month of filing of the replication and then the parties be asked to lead their respective evidence and not more than three opportunities be given to them in any event. There should not be a gap of more than one month between different dates fixed for recording of the evidence. It would be expected of learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case within one year. In case, the defendants-petitioners intend to alienate the suit property or change its nature, they shall prior permission from learned trial Court. September 10, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE