mentioning that the premises was situated in Khasra No.2471 in place of Khasra No.2473/3, thus, the complainant incurred heavy expenses for transfer of the property in-question. The FIR against the present petitioners is that while the seller Ram Prasad expired 11 years ago and the complainant wanted his son to execute saledeed in his favour, a demand was raised by Murli Manohar by creating fake power of attorney. Counsel for the petitioner has shown record of application in Revenue Case No.7/2017 decided on 10.2.2017, which indicates that on an application being preferred by Ramanand (respondent no.2), the learned Authority restrained the present petitioners from interfering in the possession of respondent no.2 vide order dated 10.2.2017. Counsel for the petitioner further demonstrated that an appeal was preferred against the order dated 10.2.2017 and that was decided by learned RAA whereby the interim order granted against the present petitioners regarding same Khasra No.2473/3 was vacated and the learned court prima facie found the land to be belonging to the present petitioners.
