Civil Revision No. 3950 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3950 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.03.2009. Jagdish and another ....Petitioners Versus Dhan Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ramesh Achint, Advocate for Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The view obtained by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P-5) non suiting the plaintiffs-petitioners on a plea of ad-interim stay was affirmed by the learned Ist Appellate Court, vide order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P-8). It was noticed by both the learned Courts, and is even otherwise apparent from the record that the learned Courts had exercised their judicial discretion in an appropriate manner. It is further apparent from the pedigree table given by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs-petitioners are descendants of Kanwla @ Kalu and Deva @ Deepa. That averment, on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners, is also borne out by the contents of Sijra Nasen Malkan for the year 1938-39. The revenue record (Khasra Pamaish Kistwar of the relevant period) records the ancestors of the plaintiffs-petitioners to be owner in possession of the Civil Revision No. 3950 of 2008 -2- **** property under reference. Though the defendants-respondents denied the averment that the plaintiffs-respondents are descendants of the persons aforementioned, that controversy is yet to be gone into and the same applies to the plea raised by defendants-respondents that the land described as the suit property does not correspond to the land indicated as the properly in controversy in the site plan. There is plethora of law on the point that an Appellate/Revisional Court is not authorised to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court, unless if it (discretion) is indicated to have been exercised in an injudicious or perverse manner. In the present case, there is no indication that there is any perversity or illegality in the exercise of judicial discretion by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Ist Appellate Court. Dismissed. March 19, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge