Civil Revision No. 280 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 280 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.01.2009. Surjit Kaur ...Petiitioner Versus Kashmir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. G.S.Sirphikhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Plaintiff-petitioner Surjit Kaur filed a suit for the restraint of defendant-respondent Kashmir Singh from interfering in her possession on 1 kanal 16 marlas of land comprising Killa No. 12//10(1-16). The allegation was that she is owner in possession of that land and defendant-respondent, who is owner in possession of the certain land across the road, is inclined to encroach upon the land owned by her and in her possession. The defendant-respondent denied the allegations and raised a counter claim, thereby applying for the restraint of the plaintiff-petitioner from interfering in his possession on the land comprised in 21 R/10/2/1 measuring 5 marlas. Learned Trial Court granted the interim relief applied for in the counter claim and restrained the plaintiff-petitioner from interfering in the possession of defendant-respondent on the land comprised in 21 R/10/2/1 Civil Revision No. 280 of 2009 -2- **** measuring 5 marlas. In appeal, the learned Ist Appellate court affirmed that order by noticing that there is a pucca road intervening the land owned by the parties and that the fact of there being a passage intervening the land of the parties, which are situated in different though adjacent otherwise shall be decided upon after the parties had had the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleas at the trial. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argues that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and also the Ist Appellate Court deserve invalidation in view of the fact that Masavi itself indicates the existence of a road in between the land owned by and in possession of the parties to the cause. The plea is totally of devoid of force. There is plethora of law on the point of that an Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with the judicial discretion exercised by the Trial Court (and the Ist Appellate Court too in this case) just because a different view of the matter can be obtained. In this case, both the Courts have exercised judicial discretion in favour of the defendant-respondent and have recorded adequate reasoning in support of the view obtained. There is nothing illegal or perverse in the manner of exercise of jurisidction by both the Courts. Dismissed in limine. January 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge