V.K. Bali, J. - Shakuntla Yadav widow of Lal Singh, the original owner of part of the land in dispute along with her major amd minor sons, namely, Bharat Singh Yadav, Vineet Yadav and Sharad Yadav has taken a strong exception to a decree dated 29.10.1990, said to have been passed by Shri A.D. Gaur, Sub-Judge IIIrd Class, Gurgaon in case No. 1588 of 1990 vide which the land, fully described in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint, was transferred in favour of Yadvinder Singh son of Randhir Singh. The total land described in paras 1 and 2 measuring 116 kanals 11 marlas, is detailed below :

"22 Kanals 2 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Sarhaul, Tehsil and District Gurgaon entered in Rect. No. 18, Killa Nos. 1(5-16), 2(1- 9), Rect. No. 23, Killa No. 8/1(0-10), Rect. No. 19, Killa No. 6/1/2(2-11), Rect. No. 23, Killa Nos. 8/2(0-1), 9/2(5-18), 10/1(2-0), 12/2(2-5) and 13/1(1-12). Plaintiffs 1 to 4 inherited this land in equal shares (1/4th each) on demise of Lal Singh, who breathed his last on January 25, 1991.

41 Kanals 2 marlas entered in Rect.. No. 18, Killa Nos. 8(4-16), 9(7.18), 10(8-0), 13/2(6-4), 27(8-0), 18/1(6-4) owned by plaintiff Shakuntla Yadav.

18 Kanals 19 marlas entered in Rect. No. 17, Killa Nos. 11(0-5), 20(7-10). Rect. No. 18, Killa Nos. 15(3-4), 16(8-0) owned by Bharat Singh;

34 Kanals 8 marlas entered in Rect. No. 17, Killa No. 21/1(4-4), Rect. No. 18, Killa No. 25(8-0), Rect. No. 35, Killa Nos. 5(8-0), 6/1(1-11), Rect. No. 36, Killa No. 1(8-0) and 10/1(4-13), owned by Vineet Yadav."

2. The suit for declaration that the decree obtained by defendant Yadvinder Singh was an outcome of fraud and deceit on the grounds that shall be fully detailed later, came to be instituted before the Vacation Judge on July 6, 1991. Accompanied with the suit was an application for entertaining the suit during vacation. It requires to be mentioned here that during summer vacation in the trial courts, insofar as civil work is concerned, the same comes to a grinding halt. There is no vacation Bench to deal with the regular civil suits and only emergent criminal work is transacted. It was, inter alia, mentioned in the application aforesaid that on the basis of fraudulent decree dated October, 29, 1990, the defendant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs. He was also trying to lease out the land in dispute and to create encumbrances over it and was even planning to alienate the same to the third parties. In case the defendant was to succeed in his endeavour to alienate the property, the plaintiffs would suffer an irreparable loss. The plaintiffs during the lis, sought for an injunction against the defendant as well and for that precise reason maintained an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the Additional District Judge entertained the suit as a vacation Judge considering it to be an urgent matter as would be clear from his interim order dated July 6, 1991 which reads thus :

"This suit is entertained during vacation as it involves urgent matter. Notice be issued to defendant for 5.8.1991 on process fee, copies. File be put up on that date before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon.

Heard on the stay application. In view of allegations and documents on record, the defendant is restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner and from mortgaging or leasing out the same and from creating any encumbrances over it and both the parties are also directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the suit property till further orders. Ex-parte injunction has been granted as the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated if prior notice is issued to the defendant. Notice of stay application and stay order be issued to be defendant for the date fixed on process fee, copies. Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be also made".

3. On the adjourned date, i.e., August 5, 1991, the suit was registered by the Sub Judge 1st Class, and adjourned to September 16,