Rai Sahib Deceased Through His Lrs and Another v. Karam Singh Deceased and Others

IN T Rai Sahib (since Karam Singh (si

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA CM-4568-C-202

1.

Section 5 of the the accompanyin could not earlie decision dated 2 2020 by one S THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CM

RA

RSA

Res

Pro

Upl

e deceased) through LRs and An VERSUS ince deceased) through LRs and ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. S.S.Swaich, Advocate and s. Ishani Goyal, Advocate for the r. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for resp r. Munish Behl, Advocate for res r. G.S.Punia, Sr. Advocate with r. P.S.Punia, Advocate for respon r. Amitabh Tewari, Advocate for -.-

ANNU, J. e applicants/appellants have fi e Limitation Act seeking condon ng review application. The case er file the review application

28.03.2019 only upon being inf arwan Singh, an appellant in t

JAB AND HARYANA ARH M-4568-C-2020 in/and -RS-27-2020 (O&M) in A-1066-1987 (O&M) served on 03.12.2025 onounced on:11.12.2025 loaded on :-11.12.2025 nother ....Appellants Others ....Respondents DEEP PANNU e appellants. ondents No.1, 2 and 4. spondent No.3. ndents No.5 and 6. r respondent No.7. iled the present application un nation of delay of 488 days in fil set up by the applicants is that th as they came to know about formed in the second week of Ju the connected matter. It is furt

- nder ling hey uly,

pleaded that the certified copies obtaining the sa delay. It is asse refusal to condo the applicants.

2.

It has been poin that they were fu engaged counse also the stand o unsatisfactory, c has been shown

3.

I h placed on reco condonation of to adopt a justic what is materia which prevented period of limita construction so tainted with mal

4.

In applicants is not ereafter they immediately conta s of the judgment as well as ame, the present review applica erted that the delay was neither one the delay would cause grav e respondents have filed a detai nted out that the story put forth fully aware of the passing of the j el had appeared and argued the f the respondents that the explan contradictory in material partic to condone such an inordinate d have considered the rival subm ord. It is settled law that whi delay under Section 5 of the Li ce-oriented approach. The length l is whether the explanation fur d the applicant from approachin ation. The expression "sufficien as to advance substantial justic la fides or an attempt to delibera the present case, although th t free from inconsistencies and m

acted their counsel, applied for the power of attorney, and up ation was filed without any furt intentional nor deliberate and t ve prejudice and irreparable loss iled reply opposing the applicati by the applicants is concocted judgment on 28.03.2019 since th matter at length on that date. I nation given for the delay is who ulars, and that no sufficient ca delay. missions and perused the mate ile considering an application imitation Act, the Court is requi h of delay is not, by itself, decisi rnished discloses a sufficient ca ng the Court within the prescrib nt cause" should receive a libe ce, provided the explanation is ately delay the proceedings. he explanation put forth by may not inspire full confidence,

- pon ther that s to ion. and heir It is olly ause erial ired ive, ause bed eral not

it cannot be ign members and th motives. The r decision from th stand that they c be conclusively

5.

Mo adjudication of prejudice to the unless gross ne should lean tow of justice on tec

6.

Kee explanation cum for adopting a l applicants are af merits.

7.

Acc otherwise of the the delay of 488 justice.

8.

nored that the matter pertains to he delay does not appear to be in respondents have alleged that t he very beginning, however, th came to know only later, and this disbelieved at this preliminary s ore importantly, refusal to condo f the review application altog e applicants. The Supreme Cou egligence or deliberate inaction wards ensuring adjudication on m hnicalities of limitation. eping in view the aforesaid l mulatively, I am of the consider liberal approach. The ends of ju fforded an opportunity of having cordingly, without expressing a e averments made in the applica 8 days in filing the review applic e application under Section 5 of

o an old litigation involving fam ntentional or actuated by mala f the applicants were aware of he applicants have taken a spec s assertion, though doubtful, can stage. one the delay would result in n gether, which may cause seri urt has repeatedly emphasized t n is clearly established, the Co merits rather than shutting the do legal position and examining red opinion that a case is made ustice would be better served if g their review petition examined any opinion on the correctness ation regarding the cause of del cation is condoned in the interes the Limitation Act is allowed.

- mily fide cific nnot non-ous that ourt oors out d on s or lay,

1.

review of the ju 1987. The review various grounds of the record a jurisdiction. Th petition. The re contends that th issues which w rejoinder to the behalf of the a petition. For th considered the p 1987, including respective conte review petition a

2.

review petition m dated 28.03.201 contentions of th record. The app Several points ra of certain couns 0 (O&M) e present review petition has be udgment dated 28.03.2019 passed w petition prays for recall and se s which the applicants contend co and/or newly discovered mate he respondents have filed a de eply traverses each ground raise e review petition is an attempt to were fairly and finally adjudica respondent's reply has been file applicants, which reiterates the he purposes of decision of th petition, the reply, the rejoinder g the impugned judgment date entions of both the parties who a and its reply and rejoinder. e brief procedural background may be stated shortly. The RSA 19 in which the Court return he parties after hearing counsel plicants challenge those finding aised in the petition revolve arou sel who addressed the Court in th

een filed by the applicants seek d by this Court in RSA No.1066 etting aside of the said judgment onstitute errors apparent on the f erial justifying exercise of rev etailed reply opposing the rev ed in the petition and emphatica o re-argue the appeal and to re-op ated in RSA No.1066 of 1987 ed by affidavit of Jitender Singh e contentions raised in the rev he review petition, the Court and the record of RSA No.1066 ed 28.03.2019 and considered argued on the same line as per th which is relevant for deciding culminated in a speaking judgm ed detailed findings on the ri and on the basis of the material gs by way of this review petiti und (i) the alleged want of autho he RSA, (ii) the dates on which

- king 6 of t on face iew iew ally pen . A h on iew has 6 of heir ment ival l on ion.

applicants, or th

(iii) alleged lega respondents' rep attention to the existence of po impugned judgm very issues whic

3.

It is jurisdiction. A r review is narro patent or manife self-evident and to be detected, which could no account of cler require re-exam arguing points w review. The pet settled paramete

4.

Ap follows. With re properly author the record disclo the applicants w heir co-appellants, purportedly c al errors in the conclusions draw ply deals with each of these co e settled legal position restric owers of attorney filed earlier o ment was a reasoned decision w ch the applicants now seek to reo s necessary at the outset to exam review petition is not an appeal in wly circumscribed. Review jur est errors apparent on the face of d do not require elaborate argum

(c) where discovery of new and ot, despite due diligence, have rical or arithmetical mistakes mination of the evidence, re-we which have been fully considere tition before this Court must the ers. plying those parameters to the egard to the allegations that cou rised and that powers of attorne oses that powers of attorney in fa were filed in the Registry in Jan

came to know of the judgment, wn in the impugned judgment. T ontentions and, in particular, dra ting the ambit of review, to on the file and to the fact that which deals with and disposes of open. mine the limited scope of the revi n disguise and the Court's powe risdiction exists only to rectify f the record, (b) mistakes which ment or re-appreciation of evide d material evidence has been m been produced earlier, or (d) or accidental slips. Errors wh eighing of factual material, or ed by the Court are not matters erefore be tested against these w e present case, the Court finds nsel who argued the RSA were ey filed subsequently were inva avour of the advocates identified nuary 2017. The cause list and

- and aws iew r of

(a) are nce made on hich re-well-s as not alid,

regular lists ove board and was li the names of dif not, of itself, in of the record. W and addresses th matter between the proceedings had no authority his fraud or mi palpable and se petition. The pe engaged counse even if accepted not show an erro

5.

On that findings re review petition judgment is a advanced by bot the relevant prin contradiction or an error appare material docume er the subsequent years indicat isted before different Benches fr fferent Benches or different cou dicate any irregularity or give ri Where a litigant files a power of he Court, the question of want o the litigant and the advocate an or the judgment unless it is dem y at all obtained orders which c isrepresentation and that fact is elf-evident misrepresentation is etition advances nothing beyon el was not the counsel who argu d, would at best be a matter of p or on the face of the record requi n the principal contention that the eturned in favour of the respon invites the Court to examine the reasoned and speaking judgme th sides, examines the evidence nciples of law. The review petit r arithmetic/clerical mistake in th ent on the face of the record, ent which could not have been p

te that the appeal remained on rom time to time. The mere fact t unsel appear on different dates d ise to an error apparent on the f f attorney and the advocate appe f authority is essentially an inter nd does not automatically invalid monstrably shown that a person w could not have been passed but s manifest on the record. No su established in the present rev nd a claim that some subsequen ued the appeal. But that contenti professional arrangement and wo iring review. ere are legal errors in the judgm ndents were erroneous in law, e conclusions afresh. The impugn ent which records the contenti and materials on record and app tion does not point to any mani he judgment which would qualify nor does it produce any new produced earlier. The grounds rai

- that does face ears rnal date who uch iew ntly ion, ould ment ned ions lies fest y as and

are, in fact, an in arguments in th RSA has return available, if any example, an app argue points wh

6.

below and this example, the na members of the again raises an seeking to re-ag recorded findin character of the produced any n statement which would justify re a second hearin specifically note that despite due sought to be re advanced.

7.

Cer presence/absenc nvitation to re-open the factual a he RSA. That is impermissible ned its conclusions after consid y, was to pursue further proceed peal to a higher forum if mainta hich have been dealt with. e rejoinder and the petition repe Court have been mistaken on ce ature of the family settlement, e family, and the validity of cer n appeal-type grievance which gitate in a review petition. The ngs, including findings on frau e transaction relied upon by the new evidence such as a newly h could not, with due diligence, eopening these findings. The law ng for the re-appreciation of ev es that the review applicants ha e diligence they could not earli elied upon. The rejoinder mere rtain procedural objections have ce of the names of advocates in t

and legal determinations made a in review. Where the Court in deration of the record, the rem dings in the appropriate forum ( ainable) but not to use review to eatedly assert that the earlier Cou ertain factual facets of the case the status of persons identified rtain earlier deeds. That content the applicants are impermissi Courts below and this Court h ud, misrepresentation and on e appellants. The applicant has discovered document or a witn , have been produced earlier wh w does not permit review to serve vidence. In this regard, the Co ave not pleaded, much less prov ier discover any material fact n ely repeats the contentions alre e been raised about listing and the cause list and taken-up list. T

- after edy (for re-urts d as tion ibly have not ness hich e as ourt ved, now

Court has exami the Judges befo periodically liste the record. The shown that the illegality, it is no

8.

In applicants have to review. The p of law after full before the RSA not have been p patent or self-ev review. To allow into an appellate

9.

For and must be dism

10.

11.

Pen

December 11, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh ined the listing practice and find ore whom the matter appeared, ed do not, in themselves, amoun listing arrangement is an admin e listing produced a procedura ot a ground for review. No such view of the above discussion not made out any of the narrow petition seeks re-consideration o l hearing. It asks for re-opening A bench. It does not produce new produced earlier despite due dili vident error in the impugned judg w review on such grounds woul e rehearing and would be contrar r the reasons mentioned above, t missed. e review petition is accordingly d nding applications, if any, also st

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

ds that changes of list, difference , and the fact that the matter w nt to an error apparent on the face nistrative function and, unless i al travesty that caused a mani travesty is made out on the reco n, this Court is satisfied that w grounds which would entitle th of findings of fact and conclusi g of issues which were fully argu w and material evidence that co igence and it does not point to gment which requires correction ld be to convert review jurisdict ry to established jurisprudence. the review petition is without m dismissed on merits. tand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- s in was e of it is fest rd. hem ons ued ould any n on tion