Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 98 (PNJ)

Surinder Parkash Dhir v. Gurcharan Singh Gandhi

2001-01-17

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - C.M. No. 18275-CII of 2000 is allowed as prayed for. 2. Petitioner Surinder Pal Dhir has filed the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.4.1993 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh on the application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 C.P.C. for the correction of the judgment and decree-sheet. 3. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:- Plaintiffs Gurcharan Singh Gandhi and another filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance and in the alternative they claimed damages on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 8.2.1989. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner. It is the grouse of the petitioner that the suit for specific performance was pending before the trial Court on 23.11.1992 and it was adjourned to 27.11.1992, but it was decreed on 26.11.1992 to the surprise of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party is a lawyer. He exercised his influence upon the Presiding Officer, as a result of that the date has been tampered with in the judicial record. Also it was pleaded by the petitioner that the application under Sections 152/153 CPC has been illegally allowed by the trial Court to the disadvantage of the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the certified copy of the interim order dated 23.11.1992 which prima facie shows that at one point of time the Presiding Officer wanted to adjourn the case for 27.11.1992 but then decided to adjourn the case to 26.11.1992. On the basis of this certified copy of the order dated 23.11.1992 the petitioner has further built up a case by referring to the cause list of 27.11.1992 that the case was shown in the cause list of 27.11.1992 and this prima facie strengthens the stand of the petitioner that from 23.11.1992 the case was actually adjourned to 27.11.1992 and was never posted for 26.11.1992. Also, it is the grouse of the petitioner that earlier the Court granted alternative relief to the plaintiffs but later on a decree for specific performance was passed vide order dated 22.4.1993. This type of order does not fall within the meaning of Sections 152/153 CPC. 5. Also, it is the grouse of the petitioner that earlier the Court granted alternative relief to the plaintiffs but later on a decree for specific performance was passed vide order dated 22.4.1993. This type of order does not fall within the meaning of Sections 152/153 CPC. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents had refuted the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also refuted the case set up by the petitioner. He submitted that the case was adjourned from 23.11.1992 to 26.11.1992. Moreover, the petitioner has filed first appeal before the competent court of jurisdiction and that appeal has been dismissed on 15.11.1996. Regular second appeal has also been dismissed by the Honble High Court. So much so, even the S.L.P. has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court of India on 18.9.1997. 6. Refuting the submissions of the opposite party it was pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present revision was filed on 20.12.1995, though it was registered in the year 1996 and the pleas which have been taken up in the present revision could not be taken at the time of filing of the appeal. 7. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and in my considered opinion extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this case cannot be invoked. But this Court can say from its own experience that the case was definitely posted for hearing for 23.11.1992. The Presiding Officer at one Point of time gave the date to the parties 27.11.1992, but this date was not suitable either to one of the parties or both the parties. Resultantly, the date was changed to 26.11.1992 under the signatures of the Presiding Officer in the presence of the parties. The Reader of the Court perhaps might have noted the date 27.11.1992 in his cause list and that is the reason the case has been listed also for 27.11.1992. but the fact which proves on the record is that this case was, in fact, adjourned to 26.11.1992 in the presence of the parties and on that date the learned counsel for the parties were present and arguments were addressed and the case was disposed of vide separate judgment of even date by the Presiding Officer. but the fact which proves on the record is that this case was, in fact, adjourned to 26.11.1992 in the presence of the parties and on that date the learned counsel for the parties were present and arguments were addressed and the case was disposed of vide separate judgment of even date by the Presiding Officer. Had there been any truth in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would have given the affidavit of the counsel who appeared on 23.11.1992 on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court to say that in fact the case was adjourned to 27.11.1992 and not to 26.11.1992. No such affidavit has been filed. Things do not rest here. The best evidence in this regard could be the envelope of the lawyer and his diary or the affidavit of the Clerk of the lawyer. This type of evidence is again missing. In this case the petitioner has already availed the remedy by attacking the judgment of the trial Court before the first Appellate Court, second Appellate Court and the Honble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, no help can be granted to the petitioner, who has even lost his entire litigation right upto the Apex Court. Any interference by this Court would tantamount to setting aside the judgment and decree which has been legally obtained in a successful manner by the respondents. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.