IN TH 129 Puran Cha Lekh Raj a CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU applicant- review of Appeal file up in the se review app the review on record. main secon RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RA-RS-30-2026 in Regular Second Appeal Date of decision :-08.04 n Chand and another …..Review Versus Raj and others …..Respon AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI None for the review applicant HI GUPTA J. (Oral) The present review applicati -appellant No.1, through his alleg w of the order dated 21.01.2026 wh eal filed by the appellants was dismisse At the outset, it is noticed that the second round, yet there is no repr w applicant. Nevertheless, this Court eview application on merits on the bas cord. On 21.1.2026, the following second appeal :- 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH ppeal No.600 of 2022 .04.2026 Review Applicants-Appellants espondents E NIDHI GUPTA licant-appellant. plication has been filed by the is alleged legal guardian, seeking 26 whereby the Regular Second ismissed on merits. d that when the matter was taken no representation on behalf of the Court has proceeded to examine the basis of the material available owing order was passed in the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 “Plaintiffs are in the concurrent judgme learned Courts below; the appellants for can the impugned Adoption void; and further decl defendant No.3 has no the plaintiffs; has bee Courts below. 2. It is inter alia su the appellants that it is that plaintiff No.1 is birth and plaintiff No. legal guardian. As s plaintiff No.2 on beha Plaintiffs being issueles No.3, who is son of brot Raj/defendant No.1 Kalawati/defendant No the time of adoption, de plaintiffs that after ado defendant No.3 will plaintiffs, but this was did not allow defenda plaintiffs. 3. Moreover, it is e that plaintiff No.1 is a m As such, he was not in in the Adoption Deed Deed cannot be sust further contends tha persuaded plaintiffs to Deed merely with a vie the plaintiffs. It is subm 2 re in Second Appeal against dgments and decrees of the ow; whereby the suit filed by cancellation/declaration that tion Deed is illegal, null and declaration to the effect that s no right in the property of been dismissed by both the a submitted by ld. counsel for it is established fact on record is mentally retarded since No.2 being his wife, is his s such, suit was filed by behalf of both the plaintiffs. ueless had adopted defendant brother of plaintiff No.2/Lekh No.1 and his wife t No.2. It is submitted that at n, defendant No.1 had assured adoption, physical custody of ill be handed over to the as not done. Defendant No.1 ndant No.3 to live with the is established fact on record is a mentally retarded person. t in a position to give consent eed and, therefore, the said sustained. Learned counsel that defendant No.1 had s to execute the said Adoption view to grab the property of submitted that Adoption Deed VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 was therefore, executed fraudulent manner and that keeping in view t had orally cancelled th initio. As such, learned have non-suited the app 4. Learned counse having framed 7 issue about the legality of th Ld. Trial Court has err in favour of defendants to the said conclus completely ignored Sec of Hindu Adoption and S.11 (vi) specifically s adopted must actually adoption by the parent or under their authori the child from the fam case of an abandoned parentage is not known where it has been brou adoption. Section 7 spe of unsound mind does n to adoption and Althoug is in fact legal guardian adoption deed the signa present and the wife ha being his guardian. 5. It is further subm for the appellants that his testimony on 09.10.2 assessment of plaintiff/a an IQ of 55 which com 3 cuted by the defendants in a and motive. It is submitted ew these facts, plaintiff No.2 d the Deed which is void ab rned Courts below could not ppellants. unsel further submits that issues with issue No.1 being of the said adoption deed, the s erred in deciding said issue ants/ respondents. In coming nclusion, Ld. Trial Court Section 11 (vi) and Section 7 and Maintenance Act, 1956. lly says that the child to be ally be given and taken in rents or guardian concerned hority with intent to transfer family of its birth or in the oned child or a child whose own, from the place or family brought up to the family of its specifically says any person es not have the legal capacity hough, the wife take a child in dian of the husband but in the signatures of the husband are e has not signed on his behalf submitted by learned counsel hat PW-7 Dr. Rajiv Dogra in .10.2009 has stated on mental tiff/appellant No.1 that he had comes under the category of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 50% mental Impairmen said impairment could b by birth and in absen should have been pre Court that he was a pe birth. 6. Learned counsel submits that in the pre came to know about t defendant No.1 threate entire property will thereby protecting the p & 27 of the Limitation A 7. It is accordingly Appeal be allowed; and and decrees of the Cour 8. No other argume the appellants/plaintiff counsel for the appella file in great detail. submissions advanced b appellants. 9. It is concurrent that the Adoption Deed of the plaintiffs. On counsel for the appellan Even otherwise, plaintif PW1 has admitted tha executed the Adoption has also admitted signa on the said Deed. She was executed with the and that defendant No adoption when he was 4 rment. He has also said that uld be result of head injury or bsence of any head injury it presumed by the Ld. Trial a person of unsound mind by nsel for the appellants further present case, the appellants out the fraud only when the reatened plaintiffs that their ill go to defendant No.3, the plaintiffs under Section 17 ion Act, 1963. ingly prayed that the present ; and the impugned judgments Courts below be set aside. ument is raised on behalf of ntiffs. I have heard learned pellants and perused the case il. I find no merit in the ced by learned counsel for the ent finding of fact on record eed duly bears the signatures On a Court query, learned ellants has admitted this fact. intiff No.2 in her evidence as that both the plaintiffs had ion Deed on 03.08.2004. PW2 ignatures of both the plaintiffs She admitted that the Deed the consent of her husband t No.3 had been taken into was 10 years old. It has been VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 contended that the Ado fraudulently by the plaintiffs. However, no of fraud has been point for the plaintiffs at the said Adoption Deed Ex. been led to establish fraudulently obtained. 10. On the contra authenticity of the Ado from the testimony of D Clerk; DW3 Rameshwa Goyal, who duly prov Adoption Deed Ex.D2. 11. Validity of the A been challenged by the that plaintiff No.1 was n the said Deed as he is birth. To prove their s had examined PW7 Dr. is clearly recorded by b PW7 has also not pro mentally retarded pe otherwise, if plaintiff No since birth, his consent plaintiff No.2 being his to execute the Adoption the plaintiffs. And Plain willingness for adopting 12. Contention of th custody of defendant No after adoption, is also foremost, Adoption D recital. Secondly, plain 5 Adoption Deed was entered the defendants against the , no instance or any incidence ointed out by learned counsel t the time of execution of the Ex.D2. Even no evidence has lish that the said Deed was ontrary, the validity and Adoption Deed was proved of DW2 Ran Singh, Registry shwar Saini; and DW4 Vinod proved the execution of the D2. the Adoption Deed has also y the plaintiffs on the ground as not in a fit state to execute he is mentally retarded since eir said contention, plaintiffs Dr. Rajiv Dogra. However, it by both the Courts below that proved that plaintiff No.1 is person since birth. Even iff No.1 was mentally retarded sent would not be required as his guardian was competent ption Deed on behalf of both laintiff No.2 has admitted her pting defendant No.3. f the plaintiffs that physical nt No.3 was not given to them also without force. First and n Deed contains no such laintiffs have not shown that VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document application Court has n Code of Ci were not f appreciated question w of giving a such as ele been referr RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 any efforts were made parents name, address the documents of defend 13. Last but not the l of the plaintiffs, ad performed in the year Adoption Deed was re Whereas present sui 06.01.2014. Accordingl limitation. 14. Learned counse unable to controvert o facts and findings. 15. In view of the ab made out to interfere in and decrees of the lea present Regular Sec dismissed. 16. Pending applica of.” The principal ground raised cation is that while deciding the Re t has not adhered to the provisions of of Civil Procedure, 1908, inasmuch not framed and the evidence on rec eciated. It is further sought to be cont tion was merely a paper transaction an ving and taking in adoption was not fu as electoral rolls, school records and c referred to in an attempt to re-agitate t 6 ade by them to change the ress etc. of defendant No.3 in fendant No.3. the least, as per the own case , adoption ceremony was ear 2000; whereafter formal s registered on 03.08.2004. suit was filed only on ingly present suit is barred by unsel for the appellants is rt or dispute the above said e above, I find no ground is re in the impugned judgments learned Courts below. The Second Appeal is hereby lications, if any, stand disposed raised in the present review he Regular Second Appeal, this ons of Order XLI Rule 31 of the much as points for determination on record has not been properly e contended that the adoption in tion and the essential requirement not fulfilled. Various documents s and certain precedents have also gitate the matter. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document application the same. is extremel in disguise when there of new and due diligen passed afte upon detai specifically Courts belo the Adopti are based o the plainti official wit compliance Regular Se within the interference Court, whi ground was RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 Having considered the submis cation and having perused the record, It is a settled proposition of la tremely limited. A review petition can isguise. Interference in review jurisd there is an error apparent on the face w and important evidence which cou iligence, or for any other sufficient rea In the present case, the ord ed after hearing learned counsel for th detailed consideration of the entir ifically noticed the concurrent findin ts below, particularly with regard to th doption Deed dated 03.08.2004. The ased on appreciation of evidence, incl plaintiffs themselves as well as tes ial witnesses. The contention now sought to liance of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is lar Second Appeal was not being de in the limited jurisdiction under S ference is warranted only on substan t, while dismissing the appeal, had nd was made out to interfere with the 7 submissions raised in the review ecord, this Court finds no merit in n of law that the scope of review on cannot be treated as an appeal jurisdiction is permissible only e face of the record, or discovery ch could not be produced despite ient reason analogous thereto. he order dated 21.01.2026 was l for the appellants at length and entire record. This Court had findings recorded by both the rd to the execution and validity of 4. The findings recorded therein e, including admissions made by as testimonies of attesting and ught to be raised regarding non- PC is wholly misconceived. The ing decided as a first appeal but der Section 100 CPC, where ubstantial questions of law. This , had categorically held that no ith the concurrent findings of fact VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document recorded b raised is no want of ac transaction the appeal. Deed bore execution s has been br any error ap electoral r consequenc of evidence judgments applicant, demonstrat wrong has Court had delay and apparent ha seeking re impermissi RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 rded by the Courts below. Therefore, d is nothing but an attempt to re-argue Similarly, the plea that the a of actual giving and taking, or th action, has already been considered a ppeal. This Court had taken note of bore the admitted signatures of t ution stood duly proved through cog een brought on record in the present rror apparent in the said findings. The reliance placed upon c oral rolls, school records or other equence at this stage. These are matter idence, which cannot be re-examined ments cited by the applicant also do n cant, as the same are based on the nstrate any apparent error in the order The plea of fraud, limitatio g has also been dealt with in the origi t had noticed that the suit itself was and was rightly held to be barre nt has been pointed out in the said fin It is thus evident that the re ing re-appreciation of the entire m rmissible in exercise of review jurisdic 8 efore, the argument sought to be argue the appeal on merits. the adoption was not valid for or that the same was a paper ered and rejected while deciding ote of the fact that the Adoption s of the plaintiffs and that its h cogent evidence. No material resent review application to show pon certain documents such as other material is also of no matters pertaining to appreciation mined in review jurisdiction. The o do not advance the case of the on their own facts and do not order under review. itation and alleged continuing e original judgment, wherein this lf was filed after a considerable barred by limitation. No error said finding. the review applicant is merely ire matter on merits, which is urisdiction. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document absence of ground to review app April 08, 2 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo RA-RS-30-2026 in RSA-600-2022 In view of the above, and nce of the applicant at the time of he nd to entertain the present review ap w application is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, sh , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 9 and also keeping in view the e of hearing, this Court finds no ew application. Accordingly, the any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.04.10 17.51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document