Civil Revision No. 3274 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3274 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.05.2009. Sumitra Devi and others ...Petitioners Versus Inder and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The ad-interim stay plea filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners did not find favour with the learned Trial Court. In Ist appeal as well, the position was no different. In the context of there being want of prima-facie evidence, the learned Trial Court recorded the following finding:- “On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant no.2 contended that the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts because he was no where maintained in whole of the plaint that he ever get mutation No.4205 sanctioned of the decree rather his simple suit is that on the basis of decree dated 14.9.90 the plaintiffs were made owners in Civil Revision No. 3274 of 2009 -2- **** possession of the suit land but the revenue entries are still carrying on in the name of defendant no.1 for the correction of which he has filed this suit. He further argued that from the jamabandi entries in the name of defendant no.1 were noticed. Search report from the Advocate was also obtained and thereafter they sanctioned loan as defendant no.1 stood guarantor. He further stated that in similarly circumstances case family member challenged mortgage deed Hon'ble High Court dismissed the request, photo copy of RSA No.3968 of 2004 passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court on 7.3.06 was placed on file.” In this case too, both the Courts appear to have exercised their discretion in an appropriate manner. The above quoted observations made by the learned Trial Court says it all and it is not a case for interference at all. There is plethora of law on the point that a revisional Court would be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Court particularly when the view of the latter has been affirmed by the Ist Appellate Court. Dismissed in limine. May 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Revision No. 3274 of 2009 -3- ****