JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - This second appeal has been flied against the confirming Judgment passed in a suit flied by the Respondent for permanent injunction against the Defendant-Appellants to injunct them from raising a High Tension Tower for drawing the transmission line of 220 K.V. (D.C.) from Budhipadar to Bolangir over the disputed property which admittedly belongs to the Respondent. The appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether the Learned Courts below are competent & having jurisdiction to decide the disputes involved in the case & to grant permanent injunction in view of the clear bar in this regard u/s 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 & Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that over & above the substantial questions of law framed by this Court during admission of the appeal, another substantial question of law arises for determination, such as: Considering the facts involved in this case, where the dispute relates to the general interest of the public, who are to be supplied with electricity vis-a-vis the individual interest of the Plaintiff, whether the Learned Courts below have gone wrong in holding that a decree of permanent injunction can be passed in favour of the Plaintiff & in not taking the aid of Section 89 C.P.C. to arrive at a just decision in this case? 3. On perusal of the impugned Judgment, it appears that the Learned lower Appellate Court while confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court took note of the fact that the Plaintiff claimed that the suit land is a homestead land & she has raised construction of a house for which the Tahasildar under Ext. 3 authorized to convert the status of the suit land. The Learned lower Appellate Court also observed that no documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the Defendants (Appellants) to prove such fact that the scheme was notified in the gazette & the copy of the notification does not reflect the details of the land over which the proposed transmission line was to be taken. The Learned lower Appellate Court has relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Susama Patel Vs. The Learned lower Appellate Court has relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Susama Patel Vs. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Others, in support of its finding that the proper notification & publication must indicate the areas over which the transmission line is likely to go & in absence of indication of the area in the publication or notification, it is not a proper notification. 4. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has filed the gazette notification before this Court to accept the same as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. the xerox copy of which was filed before the Trial Court. 5. Considering the fact that the said gazette notification, which is a public document, would be necessary for just adjudication of the appeal even though admission of the same was objected to by the Respondent, the same is admitted into evidence, waiving its formal proof & is marked as Ext. B. In the case of Smt. Susama Patel (supra), this Court on verifying the notification, which was published under Sub-Section 3 of Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 observed as follows: ...In our opinion, this is not a proper publication of the draft scheme as it did not indicate the areas over which transmission line was likely to go. 6. In that view of the matter, the lower Appellate Court held that the sanctioned scheme was not published properly. In the gazette notification, which has been marked as Ext. B, it has been specifically mentioned that full details of the scheme & the plan may be seen in the office of the Chief Engineer (Transmission Project), Orissa State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar on any working day during office hours. It, therefore, cannot be said that in the detailed plan, the areas were not mentioned & accordingly, the said areas mentioned in the detailed plan formed a part of the scheme, which was notified in the gazette. It is, therefore, inevitable to hold that the Learned lower Appellate Court went wrong in placing reliance on the decision in the case of Smt. Susama Patel (supra). It further appears that 90% of the work with regard to drawing of 220 K.V. line from Godipadar to Bolangir is stated to have been completed & supply of electricity is to be made for the interest of the public at large. 7. It further appears that 90% of the work with regard to drawing of 220 K.V. line from Godipadar to Bolangir is stated to have been completed & supply of electricity is to be made for the interest of the public at large. 7. In the facts of this case, where the Court is required to weigh the individual interest of the Plaintiff vis-a-vis the general public interest for getting electricity supply, the Learned Court below should have come to the finding that the balance of convenience weigh in favour of the Appellant-Defendant in drawing the transmission line for supply of electricity from Budhipadar to Bolangir & the loss to be sustained by the Plaintiff can be compensated in money value which is the cardinal principle prescribed u/s 38 of the Specific Relief Act under which the suit for permanent injunction was filed. For better appreciation, Section 38 of the Special Relief Act is quoted hereunder: 38. Perpetual injunction when granted.-(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the Plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication. (2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the Court shall be guided by the rules & provisions contained in Chapter-ll. (3) When the Defendant invades or threatens to invade the Plaintiffs right to, or enjoyment of property, the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely: (a) where the Defendant is trustee of the property for the Plaintiff. (b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused by the invasion. (c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief. (d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. 8. Keeping the above aspects of the case in view, it would have been apt for the Court to find ways & means to see that public inconvenience is avoided while protecting the interest of the Plaintiff. For the above, aid may be drawn from Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Section 89 C.P.C. providing for settlement of dispute outside the Court was inserted in the CPC in 1999 & brought into force with effect from 1.7.2002. For the above, aid may be drawn from Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Section 89 C.P.C. providing for settlement of dispute outside the Court was inserted in the CPC in 1999 & brought into force with effect from 1.7.2002. The 'Notes on Clauses' of the C.P.C. (Amendment) Bill 1999 stated with regard to this provision thus: Clause 7 provides for the settlement of disputes outside the Court. The provisions of Clause 7 are based on the recommendations made by Law Commission of India & Malimath Committee. It was suggested by Law Commission of India that the Court may require attendance of any party to the suit or proceedings to appear in person with a view to arriving at an amicable settlement of dispute between the parties & make an attempt to settle the dispute between the parties amicably. Malimath Committee recommended to make it obligatory for the Court to refer the dispute, after issues are framed, for settlement either by way of arbitration, conciliation, mediation, judicial settlement or through Lok Adalat. It is only when the parties fail to get their disputes settled through any of the alternate dispute resolution method that the suit could proceed further. In view of the above, Clause 7 seeks to insert a new Section 89 in the Code in order to provide for alternate dispute resolution. Section 89 has been introduced for the first time for settlement of disputes outside the Court with the avowed objective of providing speedy justice: (1) It is now made obligatory for the Court to refer the dispute after issues are framed for settlement either by way of - (a) Arbitration, (b) Conciliation, (c) Judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat, or (d) Mediation. (2) Where the parties fail to get their disputes settled through any of the alternative dispute resolution methods, the suit could proceed further in the Court in which it was filed. (3) The procedure to be followed in matters referred for different modes of settlement is spelt out in Sub-section (2). (4) Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89 empowers the Government & the High Courts to make rules to be followed in mediation proceedings to effect the compromise between the parties. 10. (3) The procedure to be followed in matters referred for different modes of settlement is spelt out in Sub-section (2). (4) Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 89 empowers the Government & the High Courts to make rules to be followed in mediation proceedings to effect the compromise between the parties. 10. Keeping the legislative intent in view for framing Section 89 C.P.C. & introducing the same to the Code of Civil Procedure, all endeavour should be made to inspire the parties to settle their dispute Outside the Court by utilizing the provisions of the said Section. Public confidence in the judiciary is the need of the hour more than ever before. The Judiciary has a special role to play for achieving socio-economic goals enshrined in the Constitution. While maintaining their aloofness & independence, the Judges have to be aware of the social changes in the task of achieving socio-economic justice for the people. Socrates said that four things improve a great Judge: (a) To hear Courteously; (b) To answer wisely; (c) To consider soberly; & (d) To decide impartially. 11. The Judges of the subordinate judiciary, which can be termed as the root of our judicial system, are required to inspire confidence in themselves & do justice to the society. It is rightly said that judicial officers discharge divine functions though they are not divine themselves. A successful judicial system is a hallmark of any developed civilization. The introduction of ADR mechanisms in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is one more radical step taken in recent times by the legislature by enacting Section 89 & Order X Rules 1A, 1B & 1C providing for ADR machinery even in cases pending before the civil Courts. 12. Hence, introduction of Section 89 to the CPC can be termed as a crucial legislative intervention which recognized Court annexed ADR methods in India. This provision is important since significant portions of pending litigations at the trial level are best resolved through these methods. Civil litigation has an inherently adversarial character & is widely perceived in society as a tool of confrontation & unnecessary harassment. Especially in instances where parties are otherwise well-known to each other, their involvement in lengthy & acrimonious civil suits can do irreparable damage to their mutual relationships. Under such conditions, judges can use their discretion to direct the use of ADR methods under their supervision. Especially in instances where parties are otherwise well-known to each other, their involvement in lengthy & acrimonious civil suits can do irreparable damage to their mutual relationships. Under such conditions, judges can use their discretion to direct the use of ADR methods under their supervision. If this approach is internalized in our system, it can greatly reduce the case-load before the Courts of law. (Key note address by the C.J.I. at Indo-EU Business Forum, London) 13. It would be apt to state here that it is by now well settled that no legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. The Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law, which are necessary for proper discharge of functions & duties imposed upon them by law. The Supreme Court has further held that inherent powers are necessary to do the right & to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sime quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist) (See Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shri Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Another. (Emphasis supplied) 14. Thus, applying the inherent power u/s 151 C.P.C. along with the provisions of Section 89 C.P.C. in consideration of the nature of dispute involved in this appeal, without referring the matter for a settlement out of Court, this Court takes up the matter to find out a via- media for deciding the case finally & orders that on the Appellant paying a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 (Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand) as compensation for raising High Tension Tower over the land of the Respondent, to the Respondent, they shall be permitted to draw the transmission line of 220 K.V. over the land of the Respondent as per the scheme. However, the Appellants shall not acquire any title over the land in question except the right to maintain the tower & over the area which exists just below the tower. Payment of the above amount shall be made to the Respondent in shape of a bank draft drawn on any Nationalized Bank situated at Burla. However, the Appellants shall not acquire any title over the land in question except the right to maintain the tower & over the area which exists just below the tower. Payment of the above amount shall be made to the Respondent in shape of a bank draft drawn on any Nationalized Bank situated at Burla. The Respondent shall co-operate with the Appellant whenever maintenance work of the tower is undertaken & the Appellant shall take all care & caution while drawing the High Tension Line over-the disputed property & in future also, so as to prevent any danger to the life & property of the Respondent. The impugned decree is modified to the above extent. 15. The Second Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Cost of the appeal shall be borne by the respective parties.