Ravinder Kaur and Others v. Harjot Singh (Deceased) Through Lr

Order 6 Rule 1 judgment alread rejecting the a Revajeetu Build

(2009) 10 SCC Others (2007) 5 that amendmen injustice should emphasize that or which chang present case, the the first time at such a foundati fundamentally a the reliance on drawn in the RS

9.

Sim construction of possession was judgment. This 2 to 5 were described as trespas ship and the defendants never as ained permissive is a finding of rror apparent on the record in thi e challenge to the rejection of 7 CPC has also been reiterated dy considered the reasons assign amendment. The review applic ders and Developers V. Naray C 84 and Usha Balashaheb Sw 5 SCC 602. Both these judgme nts intended to determine the d ordinarily be allowed. How amendments which seek to intro ge the fundamental nature of th e amendment sought to introduc t the appellate stage, despite the ional defence at trial. Allowing altered the nature of the defence the aforesaid decisions is who SA judgment is correct. milarly, the reliance upon the f structures, or payment of ta rejected with reasons, as refle Court had already observed th

ssers, the plaintiff had consisten serted hostile title. The finding t fact based on the evidence alre is regard is pointed out. the amendment application un d in the review petition. The R ned by the First Appellate Court cants rely upon the decisions yanaswamy and sons and Oth wami v. Kiran Appaso Swami a ents lay down the general princi real controversy and not caus wever, these very judgments a oduce a new and inconsistent p he defence, may be refused. In e the plea of adverse possession e defendants having failed to pl g such an amendment would h and prejudiced the plaintiff. Hen olly misplaced, and the distinct proposition that long possessi axes supports a claim of adve ected in paragraph 26 of the R hat such acts, without clear hos

- ntly that ady nder RSA for in hers iple sing also lea, for lead have nce, ion, erse RSA

assertion of o applicants have

10.

accepted under The RSA judgm from proper cu medical evidenc any error appare the grounds rais RSA judgment the findings rec error, or self-ev The review peti the permissible Conclusion

11.

For the face of the r in RSA No. 379

12.

Pen

December 01, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh ownership, cannot constitute not shown how this finding is er e further plea that the sale dee Section 90 of the Evidence Ac ment records that the document w ustody, supported by the testim ce explaining his absence. The ent in this regard. On careful con sed in the review petition were or are attempts to re-argue ques orded in the RSA judgment disc vident mistake which would just ition seeks a re-appreciation of scope of review. r the reasons recorded above, th record warranting review of the 93 of 2025. The review petition i nding applications, if any, also st

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

adverse possession. The rev rroneous on its face. ed dated 08.07.1974 was wron ct was also considered previou was over thirty years old, produ ony of the plaintiff's attorney review applicants have not sho nsideration, this Court finds that e either expressly dealt with in stions already determined. None close any patent illegality, mani tify exercise of review jurisdicti the entire matter, which is beyo his Court finds no error apparent judgment dated 07.11.2025 pas s accordingly dismissed. tand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU)

JUDGE ing o.

- iew ngly sly. uced own t all e of fest ion. ond t on

IN T Ravinder Kaur a Harjot Singh (de CORAM : HO Present: Mr Mr Mr MANDEEP PA 1. 47 Rule 1 CPC Court in RSA N 2. It i decree dated 31 judgment dated contend that thi had not begun t adverse possess contained a plea required to det commenced. Th defendant No.1, THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.- RA RS Da and Others VERSUS eceased) through LR ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate r. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate r. Radhika Deekshay, Advocate f -.- ANNU, J. e applicants have filed the prese C seeking review of the judgmen No. 3793 of 2025 whereby the app s stated that the RSA had been .10.2019 of the Civil Judge (Ju d 23.09.2025 of the District J s Court, while dismissing the R to run against the plaintiff and sion. It is further averred that a of limitation and once such ple ermine when limitation under he review application further a , who was alleged to be a licens JAB AND HARYANA ARH A-RS-84-2025 in SA-3793-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision : 01.12.2025 ....Appellants ....Respondent DEEP PANNU e with for the appellants. ent review application under Or nt dated 07.11.2025 passed by t peal was dismissed in limine. preferred against the judgment unior Division), Hoshiarpur and Judge, Hoshiarpur. The applica SA, erred in holding that limitat that the defendants never plea the written statement specifica ea was taken the Courts below w Article 65 of the Limitation A sserts that the distinction betw see, and defendants No.2 to 5, w - rder this ants ded ally were Act ween were pleaded to the pleadings o adverse and hos terms of Section No.2 to 5 as tre effect of the pla 6 Rule 17 CPC liberal approach holding that th impugned judg governing adve review of the jud Findings of this 3. Hav record, this Cou the limited juri maintainable on discovery of new due diligence, o jurisdiction cann appreciate evide to be reviewed. hearing of the R ground for revie o be trespassers, was not consid of the plaintiff, possession of d stile. Further, that the plea of ad n 58 of the Evidence Act since espassers. It is further stated tha aintiff's own pleadings and that t C was rejected on a technical gr h. It is also stated that errors ap he amendment application was ment overlooks the statutory erse possession, limitation, and dgment dated 07.11.2025 is soug s Court ving heard learned counsel fo urt is of the considered view tha isdiction of review under Ord nly when there is an error app w and important matter which co or for any other sufficient reaso not be exercised as an appellate ence or reconsider findings alrea Mere repetition of grounds wh RSA or which could have been ew. ered. It is further stated that as defendants No.2 to 5 was alw dverse possession stood admitted e the plaintiff described defenda at the Court failed to appreciate the amendment sought under Or round despite settled law requir pparent on record have occurred s rightly dismissed, and that provisions and the legal posit amendment of pleadings. Hen ght. or the applicants and perused at no ground is made out to inv der 47 Rule 1 CPC. A review parent on the face of the reco ould not be produced earlier desp n. It is well-settled that the revi e jurisdiction, nor can the Court ady recorded in the judgment sou hich were canvassed at the time n so canvassed, cannot constitut - per ways d in ants rder ring d in nce, oke w is ord, pite iew re- ught e of 4. In t in RSA No. 37 contention raise nature of posse adverse possess 5 as trespassers, CPC, the applic the sale deed d plaintiff. Detaile both the Courts the defendants h 5. and the assertion contention was It was specifica clearly pleaded by itself, consti Evidence Act. T and, therefore, l adjudication on 6. on the same gro 7. As between a licen aspect too was the present case, a perusal of the 793 of 2025 shows that this Co ed on behalf of the appellants, in ession of defendant No.1 and d ion, the effect of the plaintiff ha , the rejection of the amendment cation under Order 41 Rule 27 C dated 08.07.1974, and the plea