As per case facts, three review applications were filed by an LR of Jit Singh, seeking to reconsider a High Court judgment from 2019. These applications stemmed from earlier suits, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
(103+212)
JIT SINGH
KARAN SINGH AND ORS
JIT SINGH
KARAN SINGH AND ORS
JIT SINGH
KARAN SINGH AND ORS
CORAM:
Present:
ALOK JAIN,
1.
RSA-5588-2003; RA
in RSA-5587
same parties. Counsel for the parties
all of them together
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28 -
Date of Decision:
Versus
KARAN SINGH AND ORS
CM-4687-C
RSA-5589- 2003
Versus
KARAN SINGH AND ORS
CM-4191 -
RA-RS-29 -
Versus
KARAN SINGH AND ORS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEALOK JAIN
****
Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the
Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
By this order, three review applications i.e. RA
2003; RA-RS-34-2021 in RSA-5589
5587-2003are adjudicated as they are interconnected and between
same parties. Counsel for the parties have
all of them together, hence, all the three applications are taken up together
and connected cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
-2021 in RSA-5588-2003
Date of Decision:- 27.05.2025
……Applicant
……Respondents
C-2021 in RA-RS-34-2021 in
2003
……Applicant
……Respondents
-C-2021; CM-4192-C-2021 in
-2021 in RSA-5587-2003
……Applicant
……Respondents
ALOK JAIN
Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the applicant-respondent No.3.
Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for contesting respondent No.2.
By this order, three review applications i.e. RA-RS-28-2021 in
5589-2003 and RA-RS-29-2021
are adjudicated as they are interconnected and between
requested to take up and decide
, hence, all the three applications are taken up together.
1
Applicant
……Respondents
Applicant
……Respondents
Applicant
……Respondents
2021 in
2021
are adjudicated as they are interconnected and between
take up and decide
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
2.
regular second appeals arising out of different suit
the parties,
suit) and Karan Singh
decided together
appeal arising thereof were also adjudicated vide order dated 28.10.2003
the first Appellate Court
came to be adjudicated vide common or
Hon’ble Court. The two set of SLPs were filed which were also dismissed
on 20.11.2020 and 20.01.2021
matrix is narrated in
Date
15.06.1989
16.01.2003
01.12.2003
16.08.2016
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
Since the present review applications have
regular second appeals arising out of different suit
two of which, namely Jit Singh Vs. Karan Sing
Karan Singh and Anr. Vs. Jit Singh and
together by the trial Court on 30.10.2001 and the appeal
arising thereof were also adjudicated vide order dated 28.10.2003
the first Appellate Court and the regular second
came to be adjudicated vide common order dated 30.09
Hon’ble Court. The two set of SLPs were filed which were also dismissed
on 20.11.2020 and 20.01.2021. However, for
matrix is narrated in a tabulated form as under:
FIRST SUIT
Title Relief
Jit Singh Vs. Karan
Singh and Ors.
(CS-360-C)
Suit for symbolic
possession by way
of specific
performance of
agreement to sale
dated 25.06.1979
Jit Singh Vs. Karan
Singh and Ors.
(CA-8-2001)
Appeal against
order dated
30.10.2001
Jit Singh Vs. Karan
Singh and Ors.
(RSA-5587-2003)
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001 and
28.10.2003
During the pendency of
RSA-5587-2003 Jit
Singh expired on
31.01.2016.
Application for
bringing on record
the LRs of Jeet
Singh was filed.
and connected cases
2
Since the present review applications have been filed in three
regular second appeals arising out of different suits filed inter se between
Jit Singh Vs. Karan Sing and Ors.(First
Vs. Jit Singh and Ors.(second suit)were
on 30.10.2001 and the appeals/cross-
arising thereof were also adjudicated vide order dated 28.10.2003 by
regular second appeals arising thereof also
der dated 30.09.2019 passed by this
Hon’ble Court. The two set of SLPs were filed which were also dismissed
owever, for sake of clarity, the factual
tabulated form as under:
FIRST SUIT
Relief Date of
decision
Suit for symbolic
possession by way
of specific
performance of
agreement to sale
dated 25.06.1979
Dismissed on
30.10.2001
(Issue No.2 to
be discussed)
Appeal against
order dated
30.10.2001
Dismissed on
28.10.2003
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001 and
28.10.2003
Dismissed on
30.09.2019
Application for
bringing on record
the LRs of Jeet
Singh was filed.
LRs of Jit
Singh were
impleaded,
however, one of
the son of Jit
Singh, namely,
Trilok Singh
refused to join
2
been filed in three
between
irst
econd suit)were
-
by
appeals arising thereof also
passed by this
Hon’ble Court. The two set of SLPs were filed which were also dismissed
the factual
Date of
Dismissed on
(Issue No.2 to
Dismissed on
Dismissed on
of Jit
were
however, one of
of Jit
,
Trilok Singh
refused to join
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
SECOND
Date
15.06.1991
26.11.2001
16.01.2002
01.12.2003
01.12.2003
Nos.5587 of 2003; 5588 of 2003
013962-013964/2020
on 20.11.2020
was moved by two sons of Tr
Will of Jit Singh
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
SECOND SUIT FILED DURING THE PEDENCY OF TH
FIRST SUIT
Title Relief
Karan Singh and
Anr.Vs. Jit Singh and
Ors.(CS-205-C)
Suit for possession
of agricultural
(and in issue No.1
the question of
entitled of mense
profit was also
framed).
Karan Singh and
Anr.Vs. Jit Singh (CA-
130-2001)
Appeal a
order dated
30.10.2001
Jit Singh Vs. Karan
Singh and Anr. (CA-9-
2001)
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001
Jit Singh Vs. Karan
Singh and Anr. (RSA-
5588-2003)
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001 and
28.10.2003
Jit Singh Vs. Karan
Singh and Anr.(RSA-
5589-2003)
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001 and
28.10.2003
Against the order dated 30.09.2019
5587 of 2003; 5588 of 2003 and 5589 of 2003
013964/2020 was filed by LRs of Jit Singh, which was dismissed
on 20.11.2020. In the meantime, an application for impleadment as party
was moved by two sons of Trilok Singh claiming their rights on the basis of
Will of Jit Singh. The said applications bearing
and connected cases
3
as contesting
party and hence
was impleaded
as proforma
respondent,
now the present
review
applicant.
FILED DURING THE PEDENCY OF TH E
FIRST SUIT
Relief Date of
decision
Suit for possession
of agricultural
(and in issue No.1
the question of
entitled of mense
profit was also
framed).
Partially
allowed
granting relief
of possession
30.10.2001
Appeal against
order dated
30.10.2001
Allowed on
28.10.2003
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001
Dismissed on
28.10.2003
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001 and
28.10.2003
Dismissed on
30.09.2019
Appeal filed
against order dated
30.10.2001 and
28.10.2003
Dismissed on
30.09.2019
Against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed in the RSA
5589 of 2003, SLP(C) No.(Civil)
was filed by LRs of Jit Singh, which was dismissed
. In the meantime, an application for impleadment as party
ilok Singh claiming their rights on the basis of
bearing CM No. 936/2017 in RSA
3
contesting
hence
impleaded
as proforma
now the present
Date of
granting relief
of possession
Allowed on
Dismissed on
Dismissed on
Dismissed on
passed in the RSA
.(Civil)
was filed by LRs of Jit Singh, which was dismissed
. In the meantime, an application for impleadment as party
ilok Singh claiming their rights on the basis of
CM No. 936/2017 in RSA
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
No. 5588/2003, CM No. 1015/2017 in RSA No. 5587/2003 and CM No.
1044/2017 in RSA No. 5589/2003
27.08.2020.
Singh filed SLP
dismissed on 20.01.2021
was started in which Tr
05.02.2021 and the civil revision against the said order was also dismissed
on 14.09.2022 and decree stand executed.
Date
29.01.1993
Date
08.02.1993
impleaded as a respondent in the suit filed by Jit Singh and a co
the suit filed by Karan Singh. The above factual matrix was duly agreed to
be correct by both the counsel and the argum
3.
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
No. 5588/2003, CM No. 1015/2017 in RSA No. 5587/2003 and CM No.
1044/2017 in RSA No. 5589/2003 were also
27.08.2020. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2020, the
Singh filed SLP(C) No.001329-001334/2021
dismissed on 20.01.2021. After dismissal of SLP execution proceeding
was started in which Trilok Singh filed objections which was dismissed on
05.02.2021 and the civil revision against the said order was also dismissed
on 14.09.2022 and decree stand executed.
THIRD SUIT
Title Relief
Gulzar Singh Vs.
Karan Singh (CS-58-C)
Suit for
declaration on the
basis of family
settlement
FOURTH SUIT
Title Relief
Gulzar Singh Vs.
Karan Singh (CS-74-C)
Suit for
declaration on the
basis of family
settlement
On the basis of decree dated 13.02.1993, Gulzar Singh was
impleaded as a respondent in the suit filed by Jit Singh and a co
the suit filed by Karan Singh. The above factual matrix was duly agreed to
be correct by both the counsel and the argum
Mr. Nehra, Advocate appearing for the review
and connected cases
4
No. 5588/2003, CM No. 1015/2017 in RSA No. 5587/2003 and CM No.
also dismissed vide order dated
Aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2020, the sons of Trilok
001334/2021 which also came to be
. After dismissal of SLP execution proceeding
ilok Singh filed objections which was dismissed on
05.02.2021 and the civil revision against the said order was also dismissed
THIRD SUIT
Relief Date of
decision
Suit for
declaration on the
basis of family
settlement
Dismissed as
withdrawn on
03.04.1993
FOURTH SUIT
Relief Date of
decision
Suit for
declaration on the
basis of family
settlement
Decreed on
13.02.1993
On the basis of decree dated 13.02.1993, Gulzar Singh was
impleaded as a respondent in the suit filed by Jit Singh and a co-plaintiff in
the suit filed by Karan Singh. The above factual matrix was duly agreed to
be correct by both the counsel and the arguments raised.
Mr. Nehra, Advocate appearing for the review applicant-
4
No. 5588/2003, CM No. 1015/2017 in RSA No. 5587/2003 and CM No.
dismissed vide order dated
sons of Trilok
which also came to be
. After dismissal of SLP execution proceeding
ilok Singh filed objections which was dismissed on
05.02.2021 and the civil revision against the said order was also dismissed
On the basis of decree dated 13.02.1993, Gulzar Singh was
plaintiff in
the suit filed by Karan Singh. The above factual matrix was duly agreed to
-
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
respondent No.3
present review has been filed
the record in the
counsel has emphasized s
the judgment)
Gulzar Singh
adjudicated
granted by the trial Court, however, on an
Karan Sing
granting them liberty to
assessment. A preliminary decree was also passed
the above stated
deciding all
constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
Civil Procedure to substantiate his
adjudicate and return findings on
appeals. He
Supreme Court in
Bangalore vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors
1347 of 2022, paragraph
(deceased) by LRs
08.02.2001)
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”)
review has been filed on account of
the record in the judgment passed by this Court
counsel has emphasized specifically with regard to
the judgment) regarding whether the judgment and decree obtained by
Gulzar Singh against Karan Singh was
adjudicated by the Court.
Another issue adjudicated qua
granted by the trial Court, however, on an appeal filed by
Singh, which was partly allowed
granting them liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for
assessment. A preliminary decree was also passed
the above stated issue was not adjudicated upon
deciding all the three regular second appeals, which
constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
Mr. Nehra places reliance on Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to substantiate his submission
adjudicate and return findings on all the issues
appeals. He further relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
Bangalore vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors
1347 of 2022, paragraph 8.4) and “Santosh Hazari vs. Purushotam Tiwari
(deceased) by LRs” (Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2001, decided on
08.02.2001) in support of his argument. He reiterates his contention that the
and connected cases
5
(hereinafter referred to as “Applicant”), submits that the
on account of an error apparent on the face of
ed by this Court on 30.09.2019. Learned
with regard to Issue No.2 (on page 4 of
whether the judgment and decree obtained by
was the result of fraud, was not
adjudicated qua mesne profits, which was not
appeal filed by Gulzar Singh and
by the first Appellate Court,
approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for
assessment. A preliminary decree was also passed in this regard. However,
adjudicated upon by this Court while
appeals, which, it is submitted,
constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of
submission that the Court was bound to
ssues framed while deciding the
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
Bangalore vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors." (Civil Appeal Nos. 1346-
Santosh Hazari vs. Purushotam Tiwari
(Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2001, decided on
. He reiterates his contention that the
5
, submits that the
an error apparent on the face of
Learned
Issue No.2 (on page 4 of
whether the judgment and decree obtained by
not
which was not
and
,
approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for
. However,
Court while
, it is submitted,
Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of
that the Court was bound to
the
the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee
-
Santosh Hazari vs. Purushotam Tiwari
(Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2001, decided on
. He reiterates his contention that the
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
Court was under an obligation to
appeal.
4.
behalf of the respondent/non
“respondent”)
abuse of process of law. Le
application
counsel contends that the
Court failed to
relies upon
counsel appearing for the appellant,
(LRs) had expressly
specifically mentioned in the judgment.
under:
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
was under an obligation to return findings on
Per contra, Mr. Jain, learned
behalf of the respondent/non-applicant
“respondent”), submits that the present review
abuse of process of law. Learned Senior counsel submits that the present
application has been filed solely to protract
contends that the primary issue raised by the applicant
failed to return findings on all issues is contrary to th
upon page 6 of the judgment dated
counsel appearing for the appellant, Jit Singh
had expressly conceded all other issues and pressed
specifically mentioned in the judgment. The relevant
“Counsel for the parities have conceded that two questions
that require determination in the appeal are (i) whether the
appellant has successfully proved that he tendere
for payment to respondent No.1 on or before 31.01.1980 and
non-payment thereof is due to failure of defendant No.1 to
received the same. If not so, what are the consequence and (ii)
whether defendant No.1 was under an obligation to send a
notice to the appellant rather a notice in writing informing him
about execution of conveyance deed in his favour or
knowledge of said conveyance deed on the part of appellant is
sufficient to obligate him to file a suit for specific performance
on expiry of six months from the date of knowledge of s
conveyance deed, registered in favour of defendant No.1 on
and connected cases
6
return findings on each issue raised in the
learned Senior Advocate appearing on
(herein after referred to as
present review application is mala fide and
arned Senior counsel submits that the present
protract the litigation. The Senior
issue raised by the applicant that the
return findings on all issues is contrary to the record. He
dated 30.09.2019and asserts that the
Jit Singh, and his legal representatives
conceded all other issues and pressed only those
The relevant paragraph reads as
ounsel for the parities have conceded that two questions
that require determination in the appeal are (i) whether the
appellant has successfully proved that he tendered Rs.10,000/-
o.1 on or before 31.01.1980 and
is due to failure of defendant No.1 to
received the same. If not so, what are the consequence and (ii)
whether defendant No.1 was under an obligation to send a
tice to the appellant rather a notice in writing informing him
about execution of conveyance deed in his favour or
knowledge of said conveyance deed on the part of appellant is
sufficient to obligate him to file a suit for specific performance
from the date of knowledge of said
conveyance deed, registered in favour of defendant No.1 on
6
in the
Senior Advocate appearing on
(herein after referred to as
application is mala fide and
arned Senior counsel submits that the present
The Senior
that the
e record. He
and asserts that the
, and his legal representatives
those
as
ounsel for the parities have conceded that two questions
that require determination in the appeal are (i) whether the
-
o.1 on or before 31.01.1980 and
is due to failure of defendant No.1 to
received the same. If not so, what are the consequence and (ii)
whether defendant No.1 was under an obligation to send a
tice to the appellant rather a notice in writing informing him
about execution of conveyance deed in his favour or
knowledge of said conveyance deed on the part of appellant is
sufficient to obligate him to file a suit for specific performance
aid
conveyance deed, registered in favour of defendant No.1 on
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
Consequently, an estranged L
be permitted to raise
issues.
5.
counsel for the
discussion on the issue of
respondents
unsustainable. The suit for possession and grant of
the answering respondent
relation to possession of the property.
No.130 of 2001)
allowing the appeal returned the
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
6.10.1980.”
Consequently, an estranged Legal Representatives
be permitted to raise the plea that the Court failed to return f
However, as regards to the second
counsel for the applicant that the Court did not
discussion on the issue of mesne profits, learned
respondents submits that the said contention
unsustainable. The suit for possession and grant of
the answering respondent was only partly decreed
possession of the property. In the
No.130 of 2001) filed by respondents, the first Appellate Court
allowing the appeal returned the following findings:
“Resultantly in view of the above discussion and for the
foregoing reasons there is no scope for interference with the
findings recorded by the lower Court so far as relief regarding
possession is concerned and as such the findings of the lower
Court regarding relief of possession are affirmed whereas
findings of the lower court regarding
reversed and set aside. Consequent upon affirming the
findings regarding possession of the appeal titled as Jit Singh
Versus Karan Singh is dismissed whe
Karan Singh Versus Jit Singh is accepted and in addition to
relief of possession the plaintiffs are held entitled to mesne
profits and for that purpose the plaintiffs shall apply to the
lower court for conducting an inquiry regarding
Hence it is ordered that preliminary decree for mesne profits
and connected cases
7
egal Representatives of Jit Singh cannot now
that the Court failed to return findings on all
second argument advanced by the
hat the Court did not record any finding or
, learned Senior counsel for the
the said contention is without merit and is
unsustainable. The suit for possession and grant of mesne profits, filed by
was only partly decreed and that too solely in
n the first appeal (Civil Appeal
, the first Appellate Court while
following findings:
Resultantly in view of the above discussion and for the
foregoing reasons there is no scope for interference with the
findings recorded by the lower Court so far as relief regarding
possession is concerned and as such the findings of the lower
ing relief of possession are affirmed whereas
findings of the lower court regarding mesne profits are
reversed and set aside. Consequent upon affirming the
findings regarding possession of the appeal titled as Jit Singh
Versus Karan Singh is dismissed whereas the appeal titled
Karan Singh Versus Jit Singh is accepted and in addition to
relief of possession the plaintiffs are held entitled to mesne
profits and for that purpose the plaintiffs shall apply to the
lower court for conducting an inquiry regarding mesne profits.
Hence it is ordered that preliminary decree for mesne profits
7
cannot now
indings on all
by the
finding or
counsel for the
is
profits, filed by
and that too solely in
vil Appeal
while
Resultantly in view of the above discussion and for the
foregoing reasons there is no scope for interference with the
findings recorded by the lower Court so far as relief regarding
possession is concerned and as such the findings of the lower
ing relief of possession are affirmed whereas
mesne profits are
reversed and set aside. Consequent upon affirming the
findings regarding possession of the appeal titled as Jit Singh
reas the appeal titled
Karan Singh Versus Jit Singh is accepted and in addition to
relief of possession the plaintiffs are held entitled to mesne
profits and for that purpose the plaintiffs shall apply to the
mesne profits.
Hence it is ordered that preliminary decree for mesne profits
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
6.
counsel for the respondent
not even a single averment in the review application regarding the issue of
mesne profits. Secondly,
mesne profits and
finding on this issue is inconsequential.
7.
applicant is
applicant deliberately chose not to be impleaded as a legal representative of
Jit Singh, and was accordingly impleaded only as a proforma respondent.
Subsequently, an application under Order
Procedure was filed by the
the strength of a Will allegedly executed by
was rejected by
Special Leave Petitions challenging the order dated 30.09.2019 as well as
another order
Rule 10 of
were also dismissed.
8.
respondents.
Courts up till
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
be drawn up and final decree for relief of possession be drawn.
Parties are left to bear their own costs xxxxx”.
On the strength of the above factual matrix, learned
for the respondent has raised a two
not even a single averment in the review application regarding the issue of
profits. Secondly, the answering respondent
profits and does not intend to do so in the
finding on this issue is inconsequential.
Learned Senior counsel further submit
applicant is mala fide, as is evident from the factual matrix. Initially, the
applicant deliberately chose not to be impleaded as a legal representative of
, and was accordingly impleaded only as a proforma respondent.
Subsequently, an application under Order XXII
was filed by the applicant seeking
the strength of a Will allegedly executed by
was rejected by this Court. Admittedly, the sons of
ave Petitions challenging the order dated 30.09.2019 as well as
another order dated 27.8.2020, whereby the application under Order
Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
also dismissed.
Consequently, an execution petition was filed by the
respondents. However, despite being fully awa
till the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Trilok Singh
and connected cases
8
be drawn up and final decree for relief of possession be drawn.
Parties are left to bear their own costs xxxxx”.
On the strength of the above factual matrix, learned Senior
two-fold argument. Firstly, there is
not even a single averment in the review application regarding the issue of
answering respondent has never pressed for
tend to do so in the future. Therefore, any
further submits that the conduct of the
, as is evident from the factual matrix. Initially, the
applicant deliberately chose not to be impleaded as a legal representative of
, and was accordingly impleaded only as a proforma respondent.
XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil
seeking to be impleaded as parties on
the strength of a Will allegedly executed by Jit Singh. The said application
dmittedly, the sons of applicant also filed
ave Petitions challenging the order dated 30.09.2019 as well as
, whereby the application under Order XXII
was dismissed. However, the SLPs
, an execution petition was filed by the
espite being fully aware of the orders passed by the
Supreme Court, Trilok Singh (present applicant)
8
be drawn up and final decree for relief of possession be drawn.
r
there is
not even a single averment in the review application regarding the issue of
never pressed for
future. Therefore, any
that the conduct of the
, as is evident from the factual matrix. Initially, the
applicant deliberately chose not to be impleaded as a legal representative of
, and was accordingly impleaded only as a proforma respondent.
Code of Civil
to be impleaded as parties on
application
also filed
ave Petitions challenging the order dated 30.09.2019 as well as
XXII
s
, an execution petition was filed by the
re of the orders passed by the
(present applicant)
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
filed an objection petition in the execution proceedings, which
dismissed. After
applicant) preferred a civil revision
High Court. It was only during the pendency of the said civil revision that
the present review appl
revision petition has also been dismissed and identical grounds were raised
therein.
9.
litigation initiated by
same counsel, and there has been no plea
between Trilok Singh and his sons or
entire exercise by Trilok Singh amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
10.
respondent is that
performance, which
Supreme Court of India. Furthermore, the
any ground seeking review in respect of the suit for specific performance or
the findings returned therein, which have attained finality
findings in the suit fo
rights of the legal representatives of
applicant, have already
sake of argument,
the decree between
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
filed an objection petition in the execution proceedings, which
After the dismissal of objection petition, Trilok Singh
preferred a civil revision No.348 of 2021
High Court. It was only during the pendency of the said civil revision that
the present review application came to be filed
revision petition has also been dismissed and identical grounds were raised
Learned senior counsel has vehemently asserted that the entire
initiated by Trilok Singh and his son
same counsel, and there has been no plea
between Trilok Singh and his sons or with other legal heirs. Therefore, this
entire exercise by Trilok Singh amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
The next argument raised by the learned
respondent is that it is undisputed that Jit Singh
performance, which was dismissed by all
Supreme Court of India. Furthermore, the
any ground seeking review in respect of the suit for specific performance or
the findings returned therein, which have attained finality
findings in the suit for specific performance have attained finality,
rights of the legal representatives of Jit Singh
applicant, have already stand adjudicated. Therefore, even
sake of argument, that no findings were returned on the
the decree between Gulzar Singh and Karan
and connected cases
9
filed an objection petition in the execution proceedings, which was also
objection petition, Trilok Singh (present
.348 of 2021 before the Hon’ble
High Court. It was only during the pendency of the said civil revision that
ication came to be filed. It is submitted that the said
revision petition has also been dismissed and identical grounds were raised
has vehemently asserted that the entire
Trilok Singh and his sons has been conducted by the
same counsel, and there has been no plea to suggest estranged relations
other legal heirs. Therefore, this
entire exercise by Trilok Singh amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
The next argument raised by the learned Senior counsel for the
Jit Singh had filed a suit for specific
dismissed by all Courts, right upto the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. Furthermore, the review petition does not raise
any ground seeking review in respect of the suit for specific performance or
the findings returned therein, which have attained finality. Once the
r specific performance have attained finality, the
Jit Singh, including those of the
adjudicated. Therefore, even assuming, for the
s were returned on the issuesof whether
and Karan Singh was obtained by fraud,
9
also
(present
the Hon’ble
High Court. It was only during the pendency of the said civil revision that
It is submitted that the said
revision petition has also been dismissed and identical grounds were raised
has vehemently asserted that the entire
conducted by the
relations
other legal heirs. Therefore, this
counsel for the
had filed a suit for specific
the Hon’ble
review petition does not raise
any ground seeking review in respect of the suit for specific performance or
Once the
the
, including those of the
for the
whether
fraud,
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
misrepresentation, or
findings are inconsequential to the rights of Trilok Singh, which
derive only f
established.
11.
under Order
that no error apparent on the face of the record
that would adversely affect the rights of the applicant at this stage. The
possession of the property has already been taken.
he shall not pursue any claim for
of the review application with costs.
12.
No.3 submits that the
averment in the review application
performance is misplaced
raising/agitating anything qua the findings returned in the suit for specific
performance,
13.
through the entire records. However, before proceeding in the matter it is
imperative to reproduce the
Procedure which reads as under:
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
misrepresentation, or and whether mesne profits
findings are inconsequential to the rights of Trilok Singh, which
derive only from the rights of Jit Singh, which
established.
Lastly, the Senior Counsel submitted that the scope of review
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure
error apparent on the face of the record
that would adversely affect the rights of the applicant at this stage. The
possession of the property has already been taken.
he shall not pursue any claim for mesne profits and prays for the dismissal
the review application with costs.
In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the
submits that the contentions raised by
in the review application regarding the findings on specific
performance is misplaced. He submits that
raising/agitating anything qua the findings returned in the suit for specific
performance, would arise only once this review is allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at le
through the entire records. However, before proceeding in the matter it is
imperative to reproduce the Order XLVII
which reads as under:
“1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
and connected cases
10
profits were discussed, such non-
findings are inconsequential to the rights of Trilok Singh, which would
, which applicant has failed to
submitted that the scope of review
Code of Civil Procedure is very limited, and
error apparent on the face of the record exists, much less an error
that would adversely affect the rights of the applicant at this stage. The
possession of the property has already been taken. He further reiterates that
profits and prays for the dismissal
In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent
contentions raised by respondent No.2 that there is no
regarding the findings on specific
. He submits that such reconsideration or his
raising/agitating anything qua the findings returned in the suit for specific
review is allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone
through the entire records. However, before proceeding in the matter it is
XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil
1. Application for review of judgment.
considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
10
-
would
has failed to
submitted that the scope of review
is very limited, and
an error
that would adversely affect the rights of the applicant at this stage. The
reiterates that
profits and prays for the dismissal
applicant/respondent
that there is no
regarding the findings on specific
or his
raising/agitating anything qua the findings returned in the suit for specific
ngth and have gone
through the entire records. However, before proceeding in the matter it is
Code of Civil
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
14.
review application is very narrow and
Hon’ble Apex Court in t
State Tax Officer (1) & Anr.
principles to prevent review petitions from becoming "appeals in disguise”
The same are read as under:
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the
Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency
of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of
such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or
when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court
the case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a super
other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment.”
It is settled proposition of law that the compass to entertain a
review application is very narrow and while referring to the precedents the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Versus
State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. (2023 INSC 963
to prevent review petitions from becoming "appeals in disguise”
The same are read as under:
“16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
and connected cases
11
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
ke or error apparent on the face
of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the
Court which passed the decree or made the order.
arty who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency
of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of
such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or
, he can present to the Appellate Court
the case on which he applies for the review.
The fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any
other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
It is settled proposition of law that the compass to entertain a
while referring to the precedents the
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Versus
2023 INSC 963), summarized various key
to prevent review petitions from becoming "appeals in disguise”.
stated decisions is that: -
A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
11
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
ke or error apparent on the face
of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the
arty who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency
of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of
such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or
, he can present to the Appellate Court
The fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
ior Court in any
other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
It is settled proposition of law that the compass to entertain a
while referring to the precedents the
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Versus
summarized various key
.
A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
15.
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the following points come out.
16.
legal representatives
at the stage when the legal heirs were impleaded as
therefore impleaded as proforma
the sons of the applicant
impleaded as
executed by
on record to demonstrate that he was not aware of the proceedings.
admitted fact that
Court both
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
circumstances of a substantial
character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of record
justifying the court to exercise its power of revie
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision
to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and
it should not require
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably
be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/
judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
While considering the review application in light of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the following points come out.
Admittedly, the applicant-respondent No.3, who is
representatives of the appellant-Jit Singh
stage when the legal heirs were impleaded as
impleaded as proforma-respondent No.3
the sons of the applicant-respondent No.3 filed an application
ed as parties to the lis, asserting their rights
executed by Jit Singh. Further, the applicant has not placed
on record to demonstrate that he was not aware of the proceedings.
admitted fact that, the entire lis has attained finality
at the instance of other LRs of Jit
and connected cases
12
circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so.
An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision
to be “reheard and corrected.”
A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
which have already been addressed and decided.
An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and
it should not require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably
Even the change in law or subsequent decision/
ordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
While considering the review application in light of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the following points come out.
respondent No.3, who is one of the
Jit Singh, did not join the proceedings
stage when the legal heirs were impleaded as parties, and was
respondent No.3. It is also admitted that
respondent No.3 filed an application seeking to be
asserting their rights based on Will allegedly
the applicant has not placed any document
on record to demonstrate that he was not aware of the proceedings. It is also
has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Apex
LRs of Jit Singh as well as on the
12
and compelling
evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of record
In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision
A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot
review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and
drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably
Even the change in law or subsequent decision/
ordinate or larger Bench by itself
While considering the review application in light of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the following points come out.
one of the
proceedings
was
that
seeking to be
allegedly
any document
It is also
x
ingh as well as on the
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
instance sons of the present applicant.
17.
could justify the maintainability
especially when the applicant
Jit Singh. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment
Prakasan& Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 4307 of
2022]that after an impleadment as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4
CPC has reached finality
objection raised or
to assail such impleadment relying upon Order I Rule 10 CPC is not
permissible and stands barred by the doctrine of
underlined that procedural liberty should not be used to
matters, and allowing such strategies would erase judicial finality and fair
adjudication.
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
instance sons of the present applicant.
In addition to the above, no ground has been brought
justify the maintainability to the
especially when the applicant cannot claim any rights superior to those of
The well- settled proposition of law
Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment of Su
Prakasan& Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 4307 of
that after an impleadment as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4
CPC has reached finality, particularly in cases where there had been no
objection raised or challenged at the requisite stage
to assail such impleadment relying upon Order I Rule 10 CPC is not
permissible and stands barred by the doctrine of
underlined that procedural liberty should not be used to
matters, and allowing such strategies would erase judicial finality and fair
adjudication. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is read as under:
“54. Thus, as the dictum of the law as extracted aforesaid
indicates, the only manner in wh
court of competent jurisdiction can be interfered with is by
modification or reversal by the appellate authorities. In the
present case, the order for impleadment of the appellant as a
legal heir was made by the Trial Court a
Order XXII, as also observed by the Trial Court in its order
rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10. Evidently,
neither any objection was raised by the appellant before the
Trial Court nor any revision was preferred subseque
against the said order. Thus, it could be said that the issue as
regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the
original defendant had attained finality between the parties
and thus the subsequent application under Order I Rule 10
seeking to get his name deleted from the array of parties could
and connected cases
13
In addition to the above, no ground has been brought forth that
to the present review applications,
claim any rights superior to those of
settled proposition of law as has also been held by the
Sulthan Said Ibrahim Versus
Prakasan& Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 4307 of
that after an impleadment as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4
particularly in cases where there had been no
challenged at the requisite stage, any subsequent attempt
to assail such impleadment relying upon Order I Rule 10 CPC is not
permissible and stands barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Court
underlined that procedural liberty should not be used to reopen finalized
matters, and allowing such strategies would erase judicial finality and fair
The relevant paragraph of the judgment is read as under:
“54. Thus, as the dictum of the law as extracted aforesaid
indicates, the only manner in which a decision arrived at by a
court of competent jurisdiction can be interfered with is by
modification or reversal by the appellate authorities. In the
present case, the order for impleadment of the appellant as a
legal heir was made by the Trial Court after due inquiry under
Order XXII, as also observed by the Trial Court in its order
rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10. Evidently,
neither any objection was raised by the appellant before the
Trial Court nor any revision was preferred subsequently
against the said order. Thus, it could be said that the issue as
regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the
original defendant had attained finality between the parties
application under Order I Rule 10
king to get his name deleted from the array of parties could
13
forth that
,
claim any rights superior to those of
been held by the
lthan Said Ibrahim Versus
Prakasan& Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 4307 of
that after an impleadment as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4
particularly in cases where there had been no
any subsequent attempt
to assail such impleadment relying upon Order I Rule 10 CPC is not
. The Court
reopen finalized
matters, and allowing such strategies would erase judicial finality and fair
“54. Thus, as the dictum of the law as extracted aforesaid
ich a decision arrived at by a
court of competent jurisdiction can be interfered with is by
modification or reversal by the appellate authorities. In the
present case, the order for impleadment of the appellant as a
fter due inquiry under
Order XXII, as also observed by the Trial Court in its order
rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10. Evidently,
neither any objection was raised by the appellant before the
ntly
against the said order. Thus, it could be said that the issue as
regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the
original defendant had attained finality between the parties
application under Order I Rule 10
king to get his name deleted from the array of parties could
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
18.
orders passed in the execution petition,
Furthermore,
respondent No.2 and there
nor any miscarriage of justice
jurisdiction. The pres
applicant/respondent No.3initially chose not to
of the appellant and
sons, who claimed rights on the basis of
dismissal of SLPs
under the guise of a review
19.
single challenge to the findings returned by the Courts
suit filed by Jit Singh
finality up till
findings in the suit for specific performance and in
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
be said to be barred by res judicata. Undoubtedly, the
expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I
Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage,
however the same cannot be construed to mean that the
defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different
stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been
determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing the
same would run contrary to the consideration
justice and would amount to keeping the parties in a state of
limbo as regards the adjudication of the disputes.”
In addition to the above, the applicant also challenged the
orders passed in the execution petition, which too have
Furthermore, possession of the property has already been
respondent No.2 and there exists no error apparent on the face of the record
nor any miscarriage of justice warranting the invocation of review
. The present applications appear to be
/respondent No.3initially chose not to
of the appellant and thereafter failed to contest the
who claimed rights on the basis of
dismissal of SLPs, applicants cannot be permitted to
under the guise of a review.
It is also pertinent to mention that the
single challenge to the findings returned by the Courts
suit filed by Jit Singh seeking specific performance, which has attained
finality up till Hon’ble Apex Court. In the absence of any challenge to the
findings in the suit for specific performance and in
and connected cases
14
be said to be barred by res judicata. Undoubtedly, the
expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I
Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage,
annot be construed to mean that the
defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different
stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been
determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing the
same would run contrary to the considerations of fair play and
justice and would amount to keeping the parties in a state of
limbo as regards the adjudication of the disputes.”
In addition to the above, the applicant also challenged the
which too have been dismissed.
has already been handed over to
no error apparent on the face of the record,
warranting the invocation of review
appear to be mala fide, as the
/respondent No.3initially chose not to join the proceedings as LRs
thereafter failed to contest the applications filed by his
who claimed rights on the basis of purported Will. Now, after the
be permitted to reopen the entire issue
that the applicant has not raised a
single challenge to the findings returned by the Courts at all levels in the
specific performance, which has attained
Apex Court. In the absence of any challenge to the
findings in the suit for specific performance and in view of the fact that the
14
be said to be barred by res judicata. Undoubtedly, the
expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I
Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage,
annot be construed to mean that the
defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different
stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been
determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing the
s of fair play and
justice and would amount to keeping the parties in a state of
In addition to the above, the applicant also challenged the
een dismissed.
to
,
warranting the invocation of review
as the
the proceedings as LRs
applications filed by his
after the
reopen the entire issue
applicant has not raised a
in the
specific performance, which has attained
Apex Court. In the absence of any challenge to the
the
CM-5537-C
RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA
applicant cannot be better placed then Jit Singh, the present review
applications
20.
and the applicant is
application,
the applicant
Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute
People,Sector
Castes, Backward Classes & Minorities Financial & Development
Corporation
Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building Manimajra, Sector
13,Chandigarh
Madhya Marg, Setor 28
21.
22.
connected review applications.
May 27, 2025
manju
C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in
2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases
ant cannot be better placed then Jit Singh, the present review
applications deserve to be dismissed.
All the three review application
and the applicant is imposed with the cost of Rs.
application, amounting to a total of Rs. 30,000
applicant-respondent No.3, within three months
Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute
People,Sector-15, Chandigarh is being run by Chandigarh
Castes, Backward Classes & Minorities Financial & Development
Corporation, Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped Near
Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building Manimajra, Sector
13,Chandigarh and Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh Plot No.1,
Madhya Marg, Setor 28-A, Chandigarh, respectively
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected review applications.
, 2025
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
and connected cases
15
ant cannot be better placed then Jit Singh, the present review
review applications are accordingly dismissed,
cost of Rs.10,000/- for each review
amounting to a total of Rs. 30,000, which shall be deposited by
three months, Rs.10,000/- each in
Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute
15, Chandigarh is being run by Chandigarh Scheduled
Castes, Backward Classes & Minorities Financial & Development
Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped Near
Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building Manimajra, Sector-
Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh Plot No.1,
respectively.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
Yes/No
Yes/No
15
ant cannot be better placed then Jit Singh, the present review
,
review
, which shall be deposited by
in
Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute
Scheduled
Castes, Backward Classes & Minorities Financial & Development
Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped Near
-
Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh Plot No.1,
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
Legal Notes
Add a Note....