IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5397 of 2008 Date of Decision : 25.8.2010 Smt.Gian Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Pargan Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.K.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that the suit has been filed by general power of attorney of Pargan Singh who has not been heard of since 1993 and in all probability he might have died and the general power of attorney could not have prosecuted the proceedings in the suit. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to an order dated 16.3.2009 passed by the learned trial court where similar apprehension was expressed by the petitioner that Pargan Singh has put in appearance. The said order reads as under :- “In pursuance of the directions given on the previous date and in view of the apprehension expressed by the defendant about Pargan Singh being dead and the suit having C.R.No.5397 of 2008 -2- had been filed by Smt. Amarjit Kaur claiming herself to be the attorney of the dead person, today plaintiff Pargan Singh Singh has come present in the Court. He has been identified by his own daughter Jaswant Kaur who is present in the Court on behalf of her mother defendant no.1. At the same time, Amarjeet Kaur, attorney of Pargan Singh is also present. Keeping in mind the relationship between the parties and in view of the fact that chances of compromise arose between the parties for which parties sought some time. Now,to come up on 2.5.2009 for report regarding compromise/efforts.” In view of the aforesaid, the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the matter in its entirety. The dispute between the parties is regarding some land the alienation of which has been stayed by the trial court. The discretion vested in the court below while exercising the power under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC should not be lightly interfered and considering the fact that there is no material on record to justify the prayer of the petitioner, this court is loathe to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 25.8.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss