BABOO SINGH Vs. NATHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 21.4.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, who dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioners under Order 43 C.P.C. by affirming the order dated 17.1.1998 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, who also dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are contained in paras 11 to 13 of the impugned order dated 21.4.2000 which read as follows :-

(2.) I have heard Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, who relies upon Mohan Singh v. Lachhman Singh, 1992 P.L.J. 403 : 1993(1) RRR 24 (P&H) and submits that it is too early to say that the document dated 5.6.1990 cannot be acted upon. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the document dated 5.6.1990 is unregistered and not properly stamped, still it can be looked into for collateral purpose. According to the petitioners the partition has been given effect between the parties to the document and, therefore, the registration or non-registration has no meaning and in these circumstances the alienation may be stayed.

(3.) NO merit. Dismissed. Revision dismissed.