M.S. Sullar, J. - (1.) The conspectus of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, respondent Nos.1 to 8-plaintiffs Rajinder Singh son of Gurbax Singh & others (for brevity "the plaintiffs") have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners and in possession of the land in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner-defendant No.2 Khalsa College for women and other proforma respondent Nos.9 & 10-defendant Nos.1 & 3 (for short "the defendants"), from alienating the disputed land to any other person in any manner. The petitioner-defendant No.2 contested the claim of plaintiffs, filed the written statement (Annexure P2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of suit.
(2.) Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of petitioner-defendant. The trial Court closed its evidence, by means of impugned order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P5).
(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant No.2 has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;