CR-5486-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 128 Muskan Hannah and another Gurpreet Singh Atwal and another CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the petitioner *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL 1. The present under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugned order dated Judge (Sr. Division), NRI Court, Jalandhar whereby been declined in civil suit bearing No.CS/2112/2025 titled as Singh Atwal and anr Vs. Gurpreet Singh Atwal and another 2. In brief, the facts are that Satnam Singh, who was marri respondent No.1 was born out of the wedlock. Satnam Singh had obtained a decree of divorce from Jasbir Singh Sangha on 13.07.2004 and solemnized second marriage with petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 on petitioner No.1 was born from the said wedlock on 25.07.2006. However, during subsistence of marriage between Satnam Singh and petitioner No.2, respondent No.2 claimed herself to be third wife of Satnam Singh and after death Singh, respondent Singh in their favour vide mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025. Aggrieved by the said mutation, petitioners -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Muskan Hannah and another Versus Gurpreet Singh Atwal and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate for the petitioners. *** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred by under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P Judge (Sr. Division), NRI Court, Jalandhar whereby been declined in civil suit bearing No.CS/2112/2025 titled as Singh Atwal and anr Vs. Gurpreet Singh Atwal and another In brief, the facts are that the petitioners Satnam Singh, who was married to one Jasbir Kaur Sangha on 29.08.1993 and respondent No.1 was born out of the wedlock. Satnam Singh had obtained a decree of divorce from Jasbir Singh Sangha on 13.07.2004 and solemnized second with petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 on petitioner No.1 was born from the said wedlock on 25.07.2006. However, during subsistence of marriage between Satnam Singh and petitioner No.2, respondent No.2 claimed herself to be third wife of Satnam Singh and after death Singh, respondents in an unlawful manner got the mutation of estate of Satnam Singh in their favour vide mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025. Aggrieved by the said mutation, petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-5486-2025 Date of Decision:18.08.2025 ... Petitioners ... Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), NRI Court, Jalandhar whereby ex parte ad interim stay has been declined in civil suit bearing No.CS/2112/2025 titled as Muskan Hannah Singh Atwal and anr Vs. Gurpreet Singh Atwal and another. the petitioners-plaintiffs are legal heirs of ed to one Jasbir Kaur Sangha on 29.08.1993 and respondent No.1 was born out of the wedlock. Satnam Singh had obtained a decree of divorce from Jasbir Singh Sangha on 13.07.2004 and solemnized second with petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 on 26.06.2005 and a daughter i.e. petitioner No.1 was born from the said wedlock on 25.07.2006. However, during subsistence of marriage between Satnam Singh and petitioner No.2, respondent No.2 claimed herself to be third wife of Satnam Singh and after death of Satnam in an unlawful manner got the mutation of estate of Satnam Singh in their favour vide mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025. Aggrieved by the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH the petitioners seeking setting aside of the Civil stay has Muskan Hannah plaintiffs are legal heirs of ed to one Jasbir Kaur Sangha on 29.08.1993 and respondent No.1 was born out of the wedlock. Satnam Singh had obtained a decree of divorce from Jasbir Singh Sangha on 13.07.2004 and solemnized second 26.06.2005 and a daughter i.e. petitioner No.1 was born from the said wedlock on 25.07.2006. However, during subsistence of marriage between Satnam Singh and petitioner No.2, respondent of Satnam in an unlawful manner got the mutation of estate of Satnam Singh in their favour vide mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025. Aggrieved by the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CR-5486-2025 in joint possession along with respondent No.1 and that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 2 CPC seeking injunction but vide impugned order dated injunction has been declined to the petitioners. petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Court has filed to consider the fact that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 has wrongly been sanctioned in the name of the respondents and in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, only relief sought was defendants from further alienation of the suit property in order to protect the interest of petitioners, being Class I legal heirs of Satnam Singh and to prevent creation of third party rights a 4. Having heard lea view that since the learned trial Court has applied its mind and deemed it fit that the relief sought under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC should be defendants put 22.08.2025 and as such, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.07.2025. 5. Dismissed. August 18, 2025 Pankaj* -2- possession of the estate of Satnam Singh to the extent of 1/3 respondent No.1 and that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 is illegal and liable to be set aside. They also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & eeking injunction but vide impugned order dated injunction has been declined to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner Court has filed to consider the fact that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 has wrongly been sanctioned in the name of the respondents and in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, only relief sought was defendants from further alienation of the suit property in order to protect the interest of petitioners, being Class I legal heirs of Satnam Singh and to prevent creation of third party rights as well as multiplicity of litigation. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner view that since the learned trial Court has applied its mind and deemed it fit that the relief sought under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC should be in appearance and heard in the matter and as such, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned 30.07.2025. Dismissed. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of the estate of Satnam Singh to the extent of 1/3rd share each, respondent No.1 and that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 is illegal They also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & eeking injunction but vide impugned order dated 30.07.2025, ad interim injunction has been declined to the petitioners. Hence, the present revision Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has filed to consider the fact that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 has wrongly been sanctioned in the name of the respondents and in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, only relief sought was to restrain the respondents defendants from further alienation of the suit property in order to protect the interest of petitioners, being Class I legal heirs of Satnam Singh and to prevent multiplicity of litigation. rned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that since the learned trial Court has applied its mind and deemed it fit that the relief sought under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC should be considered only when d in the matter, which is slated for and as such, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No share each, respondent No.1 and that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 is illegal They also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & ad interim Hence, the present revision the learned trial Court has filed to consider the fact that mutation No.653 dated 07.02.2025 has wrongly been sanctioned in the name of the respondents and in the application s- defendants from further alienation of the suit property in order to protect the interest of petitioners, being Class I legal heirs of Satnam Singh and to prevent , this Court is of the view that since the learned trial Court has applied its mind and deemed it fit that idered only when , which is slated for and as such, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.21 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh