RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.)CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra vide which application filed by the petitioners for review of the order dated 21.9.2006, was rejected.
(2.)AS per the averments made in the petition, the plaintiffpetitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, on the application filed by the parties, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kurukshetra, vide order dated 19.1.2005 appointed Sh. Inderjit Singh as a Referee to resolve the matter in accordance with the terms and conditions as set out in the application. The Referee prepared his award on 31.1.2005. Thereafter, an application was filed by all the parties on 1.2.2005 before the Civil Judge, Kurukshetra, wherein it was prayed that the award passed by the Referee may be ordered to be placed on file and the case may be disposed of in terms of the award passed by the Referee. On 16.2.2005, an application for withdrawal of the suit was also filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, the matter remained pending before the Civil Court. On 16.9.2006, the Civil Judge also recorded that the plaintiffs had moved an application dated 16.2.2005 to allow them to withdraw both the cases. On the said application, plaintiff-Indermeet Singh, Jai Singh, Sushil Kumar and Om Parkash had put their signatures and the application was also signed by both the Advocates S/Shri G.S. Aneja and R.K.Goyal. Statements of Jai Chand, Om Parkash and Sushil Kumar were also recorded to the effect that they do not want to pursue the present suit as the parties have compromised outside the Court. Thus, in view of their statement, the suit qua them was dismissed as withdrawn being compromised vide order dated 16.9.2006. On 16.9.2006, defendants No. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (sons of Niranjan Singh) filed an application for permission to withdraw the application dated 1.2.2005 alleging that the same was got filed from the defendants by the Mediator/Referee on misrepresentation and also prayed to discard the award dated 31.1.2005.
Notice of the application for permission to withdraw the application dated 1.2.2005 and to reject the award dated 31.1.2005 was given to the counsel for the plaintiffs and the case was adjourned for filing reply. On 21.9.2006, reply to the application for permission to withdraw the application dated 1.2.2005 was filed wherein, it was prayed that the suit may be disposed of or may be decreed as per the award passed by the Referee. According to the averments made in the present petition, though the application filed by the defendants was contested by the plaintiffs, yet the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), vide impugned order dated 21.9.2006 wrongly recorded that both the counsel for the parties have stated at the Bar that the Referee has submitted the award beyond jurisdiction after intermingling the other matters also, hence, the award be set aside and the suit be decided on merits and the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in view of the aforesaid alleged submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, ordered accordingly.

(3.)THE petitioners moved an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for review of the impugned order dated 21.9.2006 passed by the trial Court on the ground that no concession was given by their counsel which has been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order.