Civil Revision No.2196 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2196 of 2010 Date of decision: September 12, 2011. Satyawan & Ors. ... Petitioners v. Ram Niwas & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Madan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri A.K. Rathee, Advocate, for Shri Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): On July 7, 2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:- “The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by respondents No.1 to 6 was accepted. The petitioners contend that there is a serious infirmity in the said order as the learned trial court did not grant the respondents injunction on valid and cogent grounds but the appellate court granted them the injunction on flimsy grounds. It is contended that for the period 2007 the khasra girdawari Civil Revision No.2196 of 2010 -: 2 :- had corrected by the Assistant Collector First Grade after visiting the spot and thus, it is abundantly clear that the respondents were not in possession of the suit property. To a pointed question by this Court as to what were the entries prior to 2007, learned counsel for the petitioners candidly conceded that prior to 2007, the entries were in the name of Moji, the ancestor of the respondents. This prima facie justify the findings recorded in the impugned order. The discretion vested in the court under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC therefore, does not seem to be injudiciously exercised and the higher courts would be loathe to interfere in an order exercising such a discretionary jurisdiction unless the same is shown to be tainted with injudicious application of mind. There is thus, no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners and respondents No.1 to 6 are closely related to each other and there can be possibility of settlement. Having regard to the aforesaid, notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 6 only to explore the possibility of settlement for 13.9.2010. Shri Madan Gupta, Counsel for the petitioners, has very fairly stated that if an effort is made to arrive at an amicable settlement, members of the family will be able to promote ever-lasting peace and harmony. Considering the plea raised by Counsel for the petitioners, Civil Revision No.2196 of 2010 -: 3 :- present revision petition is disposed of by directing the trial court to refer the matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre or the Permanent Lok Adalat for resolution of the dispute amicably during the pendency of the suit. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 12, 2011. Judge kadyan