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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 THE 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 - MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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) MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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, MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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, MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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 MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document