-1- 213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-RS-95-2025 IN RSA-4257-2017 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 KAPOOR SINGH AND OTHERS ...Appellants Versus ATTAR SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate & Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for applicants/respondents. Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the non-applicants/appellants. **** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) CM-15076-C-2025 & CM-15077-C-2025 For the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the review application and 3 days in re-filing the review application, same is allowed. Delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. RA-RS-95-2025 Present review application has been preferred by respondents/plaintiffs seeking review of judgment dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court. 2. It was argued that judgment dated 22.08.2025 is liable to be RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.11 17:07 I agree to specified portions of this document RA-RS-95-2025 IN RSA-4257-2017 -2- reviewed on the following grounds:- i. That the averments of the counsel for the appellants are completely at variance from the averments while seeking notice of motion along with interim directions from the averments made in the final order. ii. That Ex. P5 relied upon by appellants does not exist on the case file. This fact is clear from the order of learned trial court at running page No. 17 of the above mentioned RSA. iii. That testimony of PW1 including his cross-examination nowhere establish that the land in dispute has been partitioned between the parties to create records of rights. iv. That when the applicant-respondent No. 1 came to know that the above case was decided against him. The applicant- respondent No.1 contacted some advocates in District Court, Rohtak wherein he came to know that name of Sajjan Singh, Advocate appeared in the cause list. The copy of the cause list dated 11.08.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-2. Applicant-respondent No.1 contacted Sajjan Singh, Advocate who informed him that though Mahabir Singh (respondent No.2 herein) contacted him for engaging him as counsel and proceeding in the matter. The above counsel performed certain formalities qua above mentioned RSA. However, above counsel was not finally engaged due to non-settlement of case fee. The applicant-respondent No. 1 had entrusted the responsibility of above case to Mahabir Singh who had told applicant- respondent No. 1 that he was in contact of advocates in Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and applicant-respondent No. 1 did not require to worry about the above case. Therefore, applicant-respondent No. 1 believed that Mahabir Singh had engaged some counsel who would be contesting above case. However, above mentioned Mahabir Singh died on 28.05.2020. The copy of death certificate of Mahabir Singh is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3. The copy of affidavit of Sajjan Singh, Advocate is annexed herewith as Annexure A-4. RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.11 17:07 I agree to specified portions of this document RA-RS-95-2025 IN RSA-4257-2017 -3- v. That sometimes names of Advocates are displayed against such cases also where they are not counsel for any of the parties. 3. Ground No.1 is that averments made by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants are completely at variance from averments made while seeking notice of motion, however, same is no ground for review of order passed in detail after appreciating respective contentions. At the time of notice of motion stage, it was inter alia asserted that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction as land is depicted by khasra numbers. Additionally, it was argued that land stands partitioned in view of separate khataunis, which is further made clear from common wall constructed by parties earmarking their separate possessions. 4. Vide judgment dated 22.08.2025, this Court had found the second argument raised at the time of notice of motion to be a valid ground for interference. The Courts below had erred in not taking in consideration jamabandi Ex.P1/Ex.P5 depicting possession of both the parties separately over separate piece of land depicting them separately by way of different khataunis. This was duly taken in consideration and accordingly, finding of partition was recorded by this Court. 5. The second ground raised on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants/respondents that Ex.P5 does not exist, again is without any merit. Perusal of impugned judgment dated 08.01.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak clearly shows that in para No.9, learned Court of First Instance had duly noticed that jamabandi for year 2004-05 was duly tendered as Ex.P5 on 08.09.2015. Merely because in para No.7, reference of jamabandi Ex.P5 was not made, does not mean that Ex.P5 does not exist. Moreover, this Court while passing judgment and decree dated RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.11 17:07 I agree to specified portions of this document RA-RS-95-2025 IN RSA-4257-2017 -4- 22.08.2025 had duly made reference to Ex.P5 and had found that as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05 Ex.P5, both the parties i.e. plaintiffs and defendants were in possession of separate pieces of land i.e. khatauni No.201 and khatauni No.202 respectively. Therefore, the reasons for review do not exist at all. 6. However, Ex.P1 is same as Ex.P5 i.e. jamabandi for the year 2004-05, said jamabandi Ex.P1 is not being disputed by applicants/respondents. Even as per Ex.P1 which is same as Ex.P5, the suit property was in two separate khataunis each occupied by respective parties and admitted by way of their pleadings, therefore, even if Ex.P5 was not considered, even then no conclusion other than drawn from Ex.P1 by this Court vide judgment dated 22.08.2025, could be possible. 7. Judgment dated 22.08.2025 was passed after considering evidence led by both the parties in totality and conclusion drawn therein was on the basis of evidence led by parties in totality and therefore, no ground for review is made out, it was on merits. The reasons given for non- appearance of counsel cannot be accepted as once a party is served, it is his responsibility that his counsel duly appears at the time of arguments. For his own fault a judgment passed on merit which could not be shown to be erroneous cannot be reviewed. Review application is accordingly, dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 10.09.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.09.11 17:07 I agree to specified portions of this document