Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1335 (HP)

NANAK SINGH GANDHI v. AJIT LAJWANTI GUJRAL TRUST

2009-12-23

SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.(Oral)-The above review petitions have been filed by the appellants in RFA No.28 of 1998 and RFA No. 29 of 1998, decided by this Court, by a common detailed judgment, on 29th February, 2009. 2. In short, the grounds taken in both these petitions, inter-alia are that the judgment and decree passed in appeals, is a result of non-appreciation of the documents Exts.D13/J and PB and that respondent Rajinder Singh Gujral did not take any stand throughout his pleadings that he was in adverse possession, for the last 30 years on the Government land measuring 2 bigha 17 biswas, or that he was a tenant there upon and, secondly, the finding on the Will Ex.D2, in favour of said Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral is not sustainable qua that land and also that the State of Himachal Pradesh etc. was not impleaded as a party. 3. The petitioners had also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for additional evidence to bring on record the reports of Naib Tehsildar and Patwari (Settlement) obtained after the judgment passed in RFAs aforesaid. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the contents of the petitions. 5. In fact, the scope and ambit of review is much more restricted than that of appeal. The ground of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by a definitive limit fixed by the language used in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are only three specified grounds for seeking review, namely; (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicants knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made; or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 6. I do not find that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from any error apparent on the face of the judgment, which would lead to the failure of justice. Otherwise also, there is no sufficient reason made out for reviewing the judgment and decree passed by this Court. The additional evidence sought to be produced appears to have been created after the judgment passed by this Court in RFAs aforesaid. 7. Otherwise also, there is no sufficient reason made out for reviewing the judgment and decree passed by this Court. The additional evidence sought to be produced appears to have been created after the judgment passed by this Court in RFAs aforesaid. 7. I find that the review petitions aforesaid are under the disguise of an appeal to reopen the whole matter and these petitions do not fall within the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, both the review petitions are dismissed. 8. Accordingly, CMP(M) No.1181 of2009, CMP No.1044 of 2009, CMP No.1045 of 2009 & CMP No.1046 of 2009 in Civil Review No.71 of 2009 and CMP No.1047 of 2009, CMP No.1048 of 2009, CMP No.1049 of 2009 & CMP No.1050 of 2009 in Civil Review No.72 of 2009 are dismissed, being infructuous.