[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-10718-C-2019; & CM-10719-C-2019 in and RA-RS-106-2019 in RSA-2280-1990 Mohinder Pal Gugnani ...Appellant Versus Bhagat Singh Malik ...Respondents Reserved on: 08.04.2026 Pronounced on: 20.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera.ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate and Mr. Ja-n Sehra, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate and Ms. Apoorva Kinra, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present order disposes of a review applica-on [RA-RS-106- 2019] filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec-on 151 CPC, seeking recall of the judgment dated 13.07.2018, whereby RSA No. 2280 of 1990 was dismissed. The applica-on is accompanied by an applica-on [CM- 10718-C-2019] under Sec-on 5 of the Limita-on Act for condona-on of delay of 346 days, as well as an applica-on [CM-10719-C-2019] under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Sec-on 151 CPC for permission to place on record addi-onal evidence. 2. CM No. CM-10718-C-2019 : At the outset, this Court proceeds to consider the applica-on for condona-on of delay. Though the respondent has contested the period of delay to be 171 days only, the ques-on is whether sufficient cause has been shown. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [2] 3. As per applicant – appellant, the earlier counsel Shri S.C. Kapoor, represen-ng him had expired and that -me was consumed in retrieving the record and engaging new counsel. 4. In maCers where substan-al rights are involved, a liberal approach is required while construing “sufficient cause” so as to advance jus-ce. The li-ga-on in ques-on has been pending since the year 1984, and refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosure of adjudica-on on merits. In these circumstances, the explana-on furnished cannot be said to be lacking any bona fides. Accordingly, the delay in filing the review applica-on is condoned. 5. CM No. CM-10719-C-2019 : Taking up the the applica-on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, applicant - appellant seeks to place on record the order dated 26.04.1994 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner. 6. It is trite that addi-onal evidence at the appellate stage is not to be permiCed as a maCer of course. However, the Order XLI Rule 27 CPC itself carves out excep-ons, where the document is necessary for enabling the Court to pronounce judgment, or for any other substan-al cause. 7. In the present case, the en-re defence of the respondent rested upon the alleged cancella-on of allotment in favour of the original alloCee Sardari Lal. The order dated 26.04.1994, which sets aside such cancella-on, directly impacts the very founda-on of the dispute. Non- considera-on of such a material document would lead to an incomplete and poten-ally erroneous adjudica-on. Therefore, notwithstanding the ques-on of due diligence, this Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discre-on and permit the document to be taken on record. Applica-on is allowed accordingly. 8. RA-RS-106-2019 in RSA No. 2280 of 1990 : Having allowed the above said applica-ons, the Court proceeds to examine the review pe--on YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [3] on merits. 9. The scope of review is indeed limited. However, where a material piece of evidence, having a direct bearing on the rights of the par-es, was not brought to the no-ce of the Court, resul-ng in an error apparent on the face of record, the Court would be jus-fied in exercising its review jurisdic-on. 10. In the present case, the order dated 26.04.1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner, which came into existence during pendency of the appeal and which restored the allotment in favour of Sardari Lal, was not considered at the -me of dismissal of the appeal on 13.07.2018. The omission has materially affected the adjudica-on, thereby cons-tu-ng a valid ground for review. 11. On merits, it emerges from the record that the allotment of the suit land in favour of Sardari Lal in 1958 and conferment of proprietary rights upon him in 1959 are not in dispute. It is equally undisputed that upon his death, the property devolved upon his widow Shiva Wan-, and that the plain-ff purchased the same through a duly registered sale deed dated 21.12.1979. The validity of this sale deed has been concurrently upheld. 12. The only challenge raised by the defendant was premised upon the alleged cancella-on of allotment. However, in view of the order dated 26.04.1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner, seJng aside such cancella-on, the very basis of the defendant’s plea stands demolished. Consequently, the chain of -tle in favour of the plain-ff stands duly established in law. 13. On the other hand, the defendant has failed to substan-ate his own -tle. No documentary evidence has been produced to establish allotment in favour of his predecessor, or the -tle of his vendor Smt. Bimla Kataria. Even the sale deed in his favour has not been proved on record. In YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [4] such circumstances, the defendant cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser, nor can he assert a beCer -tle than that of the plain-ff. 14. The finding recorded by the First Appellate Court with regard to non-iden-fica-on of the suit property also cannot be sustained. The site plan Ex.P5 proved on record clearly demonstrates that the encroachment made by the defendant falls within the khasra number forming part of the property purchased by the plain-ff. The evidence on record was sufficient to establish the iden-ty of the encroached por-on, and the contrary finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is perverse and contrary to the material available on record. 15. At the same -me, it cannot be overlooked that the defendant has been in possession of the disputed por-on since 1984 and has raised construc-on thereupon. In connected maCers [RSA-2920-1984 and RSA- 2092-1985 decided on 15.11.2013 ] involving similarly situated par-es, relief has been moulded by gran-ng compensa-on in lieu of possession, taking recourse to equitable principles embodied in Sec-on 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. Keeping in view the long possession of the defendant and the interest of jus-ce, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the same course. 16. Accordingly, while holding the plain-ff to be the lawful owner of the suit property, it is directed that the defendant shall be en-tled to retain possession of the por-on (116 – 1/9 sq. yds) under his occupa-on subject to payment of the current market value thereof to the plain-ff. The said market value shall be determined by the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of cer-fied copy of this order. Both the par-es will be provided two opportuni-es each to produce evidence in this regard of short dura-on. In case, the trial Court is unable to determine the actual market value on the basis of evidence produced by the par-es, the trial Court will be at liberty to determine the same on the basis of the collector rate as on today. The defendant shall deposit the determined YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [5] amount within a period of three months from the date of such determina-on. In the event of failure to make payment within the s-pulated period, the plain-ff shall be en-tled to possession of the suit property, and the defendant shall remove the construc-on raised thereon, failing which the plain-ff shall be en-tled to take possession in accordance with law. 17. The review applica-on is accordingly allowed, the judgment dated 13.07.2018 is recalled, and the maCer stands disposed of in the above terms. Any other applica-on, if pending, also stands disposed of. 20.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 20.04.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.20 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document