- (1.) THE epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially respondents -plaintiffs Sarabjit Kaur widow of Jasvir Singh and her minor daughter Simarjit Kaur (for brevity "the plaintiffs), have instituted a regular suit for recovery of maintenance amount, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner -defendant Shingara Singh son of Sadhu Singh (for short "the defendant"), from interfering in their peaceful possession of the property in dispute. They have also filed an application (Annexure P -1) to grant interim maintenance. The defendant refuted the prayer of interim maintenance, filed the reply to the application for interim maintenance and prayed for its dismissal.
(2.) TAKING into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court has partly accepted the prayer and directed the defendant to pay an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/ - (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to each plaintiffs, by means of order dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure P -3).
(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by way of impugned order dated 06.09.2013 (Annexure P -4). Instead of making the payment of the amount of interim maintenance to the unfortunate plaintiffs, the defendant has straight way jumped to file the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned orders (Annexures P -3 and P -4), invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;