IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4887 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.08.2009 Amrik Singh .....Petitioner versus Mandeep Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the defendant-petitioner who has been restrained by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 16.4.2009, from alienating or transferring the suit land by sale, mortgage, gift/exchange or in any other manner till the disposal of the suit. The impugned order has been passed in an appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs whose application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 26.11.2008. The controversy pertains to the genuineness and validity of the Will dated 20.7.2004, allegedly executed by Mohinder Singh, father of the respondent-plaintiffs. While the petitioner-defendant relies upon the C.R. No.4887 of 2009 (O&M) 2 said Will and contends that a part of the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Partapgarh has been bequeathed in his favour by the father of the respondent-plaintiffs, as it was purchased by the deceased from the money which the petitioner-NRI kept on sending from time to time, the respondent-plaintiff appears to have disputed execution of that Will. In the given circumstances, the recourse followed by the Additional District Judge, who has directed the petitioner-defendant to continue to retain the possession of the property and enjoy the fruits of the land, but not to alienate the same, appears to be correct. Having regard to the scope of interference by a revisional Court in injunction, no case for interference in the impugned order dated 16.4.2009 by this Court, is made out. However, owing to the nature of the controversy, it would be expedient to decide the civil suit at the earliest for which the parties may not be given more than 4-5 opportunities to lead their respective evidence. The revision petition stands disposed of with these observations. Dasti. 28-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE