Civil Revision No.147 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.147 of 2008 Decided on : March 31, 2009 Ranjit Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Kirna Dhir and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Garg, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Heard. Admittedly, the suit for recovery and declaration was filed against respondent No.1 on the basis of a promissory note and receipt, whereas, an injunction was sought against respondent No.2 not to alienate the property as he (respondent No.2) had received it from respondent No.1. It is also admitted position that respondent No.2 is not the debtor and the property came in her hand prior to the filing of the suit. Since respondent No.1 had transferred the property after the execution of the pro-note and before the filing of the suit, therefore, the Civil Revision No.147 of 2008 [ 2 ] suit could be filed under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even otherwise, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in case Southern Sales & Services & Ors vs. Sauermilch Design & Handels GMBH, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 729, even if a wrong order is passed by the Trial Court having jurisdiction to pass an order in such cases, the revision Court will not interfere with such an order, unless a jurisdictional error is pointed out and established by the person who questions such order. No jurisdictional error has been pointed out in the impugned order. In view of the above position, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, it is directed that the Trial Court will decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. March 31, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE