IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6321 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.9.2010 Leelawati ....Petitioner Versus Ram Sarup and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.2010 by which the prayer of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been declined. Admittedly, according to the claim of the petitioner, she is the owner of ½ share of the property and the other half, according to her, belongs to Bachna Ram. She, however, pleads that she is in possession of the entire area as a co-sharer and in joint possession with Bachna Ram. The injunction has been declined to the petitioner on the ground that there is no material produced by the petitioner to show that her alleged possession on the area belonging to Bachna Ram is authorised in any manner. It is further pleaded that Kalu Ram, who was father of the petitioner and Bachna Ram had authorised the C.R.No.6321 of 2010 (O&M) -2- possession in favour of the petitioner and that she is in actual physical possession of the share of Bachna Ram as she is tenant thereon. The petitioner failed to produce any material to show that she was a tenant under Bachna Ram. Before this Court also there is no material produced by the petitioner from where it can be inferred that the plea of tenancy over the share of Bachna Ram is proved which could show that she is tenant under Bachna Ram. In this view of the matter when the basic fundamental plea as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assert his possession that he was tenant on the share of Bachna Ram and having failed to establish it, I am of the opinion that the discretion which has been vested by law in courts to determine the proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been judiciously exercised. There is thus no ground to interfere. Dismissed. 30.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss