Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 576 (PNJ)

Darshan Lal v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-22

DAYA CHAUDHARY, VINOD K.SHARMA

body2010
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been moved for condoning the delay of 187 days in filing the review petition. The ground taken for condonation of delay reads as under -- "That the petitioner studied the matter and found that major facts were not considered. That later on petitioner came to know that this order there is a material irregularity and the contents of the writ petition No. 5188 of 1990 are some different with the petition of petitioner and ultimately on dated petitioner got a copy of Girdawari vide which it is mentioned that in the year 1955 the land was under utilization and wheat, gram, cherry crops are standing shows in the Crop Book and rest of the time was taken in preparation and filing of the same." 2. The above ground, even if taken on its face value, does not constitute sufficient cause, for condoning the delay of 187 days, as it can not be believed that the petitioners took 187 days to understand the judgment. This application for condonation of delay also deserves to be dismissed. "Ordered accordingly." C.M. No. 18237 of 2009 3 This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved for condonation of delay in refiling the review petition. The ground taken for condoning the delay of 231 days in refiling the review petition reads as under- "That the petitioner studied the matter and found that major facts were not considered and filed on the accompanying revision petition on dated 10.03.09 and on the same day the registry put an objection. It is to mention here that in the meanwhile the copy of the said review petition is m ixed up with other briefs and on dated 26.10.09 one FAO No. 3516/2009 is fixed before this Hon -ble Court and the afore said file is lying in the said brief and then the counsel for the petitioner file the same without any delay." This cannot be a ground to condone the delay of 231 days in refiling the review petition, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Krishan Dev Dhiman v. Mahesh Bhatia and others, 2009(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 202 - 2008(4) P.L.R 23, this application, therefore, also deserves to be dismissed. "Ordered accordingly." Review Petition No. 431 of 2009 4. "Ordered accordingly." Review Petition No. 431 of 2009 4. The petitioners seek review of the judgment dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Hon-ble Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 5677 of 1988. 5. The petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5677 of 1988 to seek benefit under Section 8 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as -the Act-), on the plea that the land in dispute was purchased by the petitioners before 30.7.1958 and, therefore, the land was liable to be exempted from surplus area. 6. The plea of the petitioners did not find favour with the Hon-ble Division Bench for the reason, that the land in dispute stood utilised and allotted prior to coming into force of the Act. 7. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate. 8. Whereas, this review petition has been filed by Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. The review is sought on the ground, that the petitioners, were the small land owners, whereas the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 5188 of 1990 were big landowners, but this fact was not considered by the Hon-ble Division Bench, while disposing of the writ petition, in view of findings recorded in C.W.P. No. 5188 of 1990. 9. The plea taken in review petition again is, that the land having been purchased, prior to July 30, 1958, when it had not been declared surplus, was protected under Section 8 of the Act. 10. This point already stands answered, therefore, this cannot be a ground for review not the status of the petitioners being small or big landowners could make difference for seeking exemption under Section 8 of the Act. The land stood already utilised and allotted priorto coming into force of the Act. 11. The other ground on which the review sought is, that there were procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners was, however, unable to point out any procedural irregularities or violation of principles of natural justice, in the order. 13. No ground, whatsoever, is made out to review. It is well settled law, that review cannot be claimed on a point, which was not urged at the time of arguments. 14. For the reasons stated above, review petition is. dismissed on merits as well, as being barred by limitation.