Parties seeking discretionary relief must make a candid disclosure of all facts, and attempts to mislead the court can lead to dismissal of the petition.

S.S. Nijjar, J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner at length. Prima facie I am of the view that the petitioners have tried to mislead this Court to the effect that the order dated 4.6.99 had been passed on the agreement of the parties. Learned counsel on the basis of instructions has further submitted that in fact the order does not reflect the agreement which had been reached between the parties. He submitted that the parties had only agreed that the defendants in the suit will not alienate the suit property during the pendnecy of the suit. It was never agreed between the parties that possession would remain with the plaintiffs as the possession was with the defendants. Learned counsel proceeded to argue on the aforesaid basis. After hearing the arguments at length, this Court examined the order passed by the trial Court on 4.6.99. A persual of the aforesaid order shows that after hearing the counsel for parties and after perusing the record, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC had been decided on merits. There is no whisper anywhere of any agreement between the parties. In fact the trial Court records that during the course of arguments, it was conceded by the counsel for defendants that plaintiffs were in possession of part of the suit land. It appears that the petitioners-defendants in the suit did not care to challenge the aforesaid order. Hence the order became final. It order to get out of the delay the petitioners filed review application on 22.7.2000. The Review Application has been decided by order dated 11.12.2000. A perusal of the order passed shows that the original order dated 4.6.1999 was passed by Miss Ritu Bahl, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sirsa. The Review Application has been decided by Mr. R.K. Saini, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sirsa, her successor. A persual of the order shows that the plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming therein that they are owner in possession of the suit land, and that the will executed on 22.5.1998 and registered on 29.5.1998 by Smt. Pato Devi widow of Bhura in favour of the defendants regarding her estate is null and void. The plaintiffs sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from getting the mutation entered and sanctioned in their favour on the basis of will and also from alienating the same to some other person. It was further pleaded in the review application that at the time of arguments of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiffs had agreed that the defendants were in possession of a part of the suit land. However, a perusal of the order passed on 4.6.1999 shows that it has been mentioned that the concession was made by defendants/applicants to the effect that the plaintiffs-respondents were in possession of a part of the suit land. This factual statement recorded in the order was stated to be incorrect. This was the ground of review. It was argued that the application for injunction ought to have been accepted partly whereas the same has been accepted completely against the arguments of both the counsel and against the facts of the case. From the perusal of the above, it becomes apparent that even before the trial Court when the order dated 4.6.1999 was passed, there was no agreement for passing an order on the consent of the parties or the concession of the parties. After noticing the above facts, the Civil Judge, while passing the order in review has noticed that the order dated 4.6.1999 has become final as no appeal has been filed against the same. The learned Court has also noticed that counsel for the plaintiffs had pointed out to the entries in Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 which was placed on record. These entries show that the plaintiffs have been recorded to be in possession of the suit land. Thus the Review Application has been dismissed by holding that the order dated 4.6.999 has been correctly passed. Thereafter, the defendants filed Appeal, before the