Judgment 1. This revision petition filed under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is directed against the order dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa allowing the appeal filed against the order dated 16-8-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa. The Civil Judge in its order had dismissed the application of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for restraining the defendant-petitioner from alienating the suit land and also from interfering into the cultivating possession of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 over the suit land. Thereafter, the Addl. District Judge has allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering into possession of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 over the suit land. 2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded in this case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 29 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Sq. No. 73 Killa No. 9 (8-0), 10/1 (5-10), 10/2 (2-10) 11(8-0) 12/1(3-6) 19/1/2 (0-13) 20/1 (1-13) as shown and denoted with green colour in the rough site plan Annexure-A attached with the plaint situated in village Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa; and plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is also owner in possession of 282/702 share of land measuring 23 kanals 6 marlas comprised in Sq. No. 73 Killa No. 2-Min (5-16) 3-min (4-13) 4-min (4-13) 5 min (6-4), Sq. No. 72 killa No. 10 min (2-0), in lieu of which he is in cultivating possession of land measuring 9 kanals 7 marlas forming part of killas No. 2/2 and 3/3 of Sq. No. 73 as shown and described with yellow colour in rough site plan attached with the plaint, situated in village Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa and that defendant-petitioner has no right, title or interest in the above-mentioned land. It has further been claimed that proceedings in Civil Suit No. 701-C, dated 30-11-1998 title Gurmail Singh V/s. Lakha Singh are null and void, result of fraud, impersonation, forgery and the same is liable to be set aside and the judgment and decree dated 2-9-2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1999 titled as Gurmail Singh V/s. Lakha Singh passed by the then Addl. District Judge, Sirsa declaring the defendant-petitioner as owner in possession of the land measuring 67 kanals 6 marlas and the land equivalent to 202/466 share of land measuring 23 kanals 6 marlas are also liable to be set aside having been obtained by fraud and the judgment and decree dated 2-9-2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1999 is also to be revoked and forfeited and permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from alienating/transferring the above property and restraining them from interfering into the cultivating possession of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 over the suit land or causing damage to the crops of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 situated in killa No. 20/1 of Sq. No. 73 of the suit land in any manner whatsoever. 3. The defendant-petitioner and plaintiff-respondent No. 1 are real brothers and are sons of Lakha Singh, defendant-respondent No. 2. The defendant-respondent No. 2 was the owner of the suit land measuring 38 kanals 19 marlas. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 became owner of this land in pursuance of the exchange of his house with his father defendant-respondent No. 2 for which report No. 810 was recorded in the Roznamcha on 23-8-2000 and mutation No. 11173 was sanctioned on its basis on 28-9-2000. The defendant-petitioner on the basis of some fraudulent decree passed in Civil Suit No. 701-C started asserting to be the owner in possession of the suit land as well as the other land owned by his father defendant-respondent No. 2. That decree was allegedly based on fraud/misrepresentation. FIR No. 582 dated 12-12-2000 under Ss. 419/420/467/120-B, IPC, Police Station City Sirsa, was also registered against the defendant-petitioner for obtaining fraudulent decree. It is in these circumstances that the afore-mentioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. Along with the suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed. 4. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding by recording the admitted fact that defendant-respondent No. 2 Lakha Singh was the owner of the suit land and also some other land. He exchanged the suit land measuring 38 kanals 19 marlas with the house of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and report to that effect was made in the Roznamcha. Even the mutation was sanctioned on that basis on 20-9-2000. The Collector in appeal set aside the afore-mentioned exchange although the appeal before the Collector was time-barred. He exchanged the suit land measuring 38 kanals 19 marlas with the house of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and report to that effect was made in the Roznamcha. Even the mutation was sanctioned on that basis on 20-9-2000. The Collector in appeal set aside the afore-mentioned exchange although the appeal before the Collector was time-barred. The order of the Collector has been assailed in revision by the plaintiff-respondent before the Commissioner in which status quo has been ordered. The exchange cannot be held to be illegal in view of the fact that defendant-respondent No. 2 still admits the correctness of the exchange and the mutual exchange of immovable property with delivery of possession is impermissible in Haryana. This view is supported by the decision of this Court in Sona Ram V/s. Mulakh Raj, 2000 (1) CCC 156. On the basis of the exchange, mutation has been sanctioned and the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is continuing in possession of the suit land. Insofar as the consent decree obtained by the defendant-petitioner is concerned, it has been observed that prima facie it is proved that the consent decree was obtained by fraud and the same cannot be used by the person who has obtained the decree. The learned Addl. District Judge has also referred to the pleadings of defendant-respondent No. 2 wherein he has categorically averred that he did not suffer any consent decree in respect of his land including the suit land in favour of the defendant-petitioner Gurmail Singh. On the basis of the report of the F.S.L. Madhuban, it has been concluded that the sample thumb impression of defendant-respondent No. 2 Lakha Singh was compared with the disputed thumb impression on the statement allegedly made before the Civil Court and it was found that this did not tally. On that basis prima facie it was held that the decree was not passed by the Civil Court on the basis of the admission made by defendant-respondent No. 2. Another reason given by the lower appellate Court for grant of ad interim order is that the trial Court ignored these aspects. 5. I have heard Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. Another reason given by the lower appellate Court for grant of ad interim order is that the trial Court ignored these aspects. 5. I have heard Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. His first argument is that defendant-respondent No. 2 has filed a civil suit in which notice has been issued and the same is pending wherein the afore-mentioned decree dated 30-11-1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 301-C has also been challenged and the Civil Court has granted an order of status quo in that case. He has further contended that the decree dated 30-11-1998 cannot be treated as fraudulent till the time a categorical finding is recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Another submission made by him is that the FIR No. 582, dated 12-12-2000 has also been challenged in Crl. Misc. No. 2237-M of 2001 which is pending before this Court for 30-4-2002. He has still further submitted that the consent decree is till the time the same is set aside and its effect cannot be taken away till then. For this proposition, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sunita Jain V/s. Chander Kanta, 1996 PLJ 52 : 1996 AIHC 1873. 6. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and regret my inability to accept the same. The lower appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that on comparison of sample thumb impression of defendant-respondent No. 2 with his disputed thumb impression on the statement made by him before the Civil Court for suffering the alleged decree in favour of defendant-petitioner it has been found that the thumb impression did not tally. Therefore, the consent decree challenged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has been prima facie found to be the result of fraud. The argument of the learned counsel that the decree shall be given full effect till it is set aside cannot be accepted once a prima facie finding is recorded throwing the decree to the grave doubts. The interim stay of FIR No. 582, dated 12-12-2000 in Crl. Misc. No. 2237-M of 2001 would also not be of any help to the defendant-petitioner because prima facie the decree has been found to be tainted with fraud on the basis of the report issued by the F.S.L. Madhuban. The interim stay of FIR No. 582, dated 12-12-2000 in Crl. Misc. No. 2237-M of 2001 would also not be of any help to the defendant-petitioner because prima facie the decree has been found to be tainted with fraud on the basis of the report issued by the F.S.L. Madhuban. Insofar as the judgment in the case of Sunita Jain (supra) is concerned it is absolutely distinguishable as there was no allegation that the decree was obtained by fraud nor there was any report of the F.S.L. Madhuban like the one available on the record of this case. Therefore, this judgment does not advance the case of the defendant-petitioner. Another reason for dismissing the revision petition is that the defendant-respondent No. 2 has already filed a civil suit challenging the decree dated 30-11-1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 301-C and the Civil Court has already ordered status quo in that case. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the discretion exercised by the lower appellate Court in granting interim order to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. There is neither any material irregularity nor any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Needless to add that the fraud vitiates every act. 8. The revision petition is thus devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. The opinion expressed in the paras above is an opinion at first blush and shall not influence the civil Court while deciding the case finally. Petition dismissed.