RSA No.1425 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1425 of 2007 Date of Decision:26.03.2009 Hardev Singh ....appellant Versus Ujjagar Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Rohit Chaudhary,Advocate for the appellant Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession by way of partition of the suit property was decreed. This appeal came up for hearing before this court on 06.07.2007. After hearing at length, this Court was of the view that there was no infirmity in the findings recorded by both the courts below and in the present appeal no substantial question of law was shown to have arisen. However, keeping in view the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the parties are related and some settlement may take place, notice of motion was issued to that extent only for exploring the possibility of settlement of the dispute. Thereafter, on August 26,2008 Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondents and had stated that there seems to be no chance of compromise, however, on the agreement of both the counsel for the parties, the case was sent to Mediation and Reconciliation Centre, Punjab RSA No.1425 of 2007 2 & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for settlement of the dispute through the mediation. The Mediation and Reconciliation Centre, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, has remitted the case back to the Court on the basis of the report dated 17.02.2009 passed by Sh.Pawan Kumar Gupta, Mediator, wherein it has been submitted that the respondents have refused to settle the matter through mediation. In view of the aforesaid facts, there remains no possibility of settlement between the parties. Since the notice of motion was issued to this limited extent only, I have no option but to dismiss this appeal. Ordered accordingly. Dismissed as no substantial question of law arises in this case as observed vide order dated 06.07.2007. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.03.2009 neenu