Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Kaur And Others vs Ranbir Singh on 5 October, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RA-CR No. 141-CII of 2013 in
CR No. 7505 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
RA-CR No. 141-CII of 2013 in
CR No. 7505 of 2012
Date of decision: October 5, 2013
Inderjit Kaur and others
....... Petitioners
Versus
Ranbir Singh
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Sherry K Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The application for review is sought on the ground that there was an undertaking given by a party that itself must be taken as enabling a person to execute the same. The counsel relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi 2012 (4) SCC 307 to contend that it should be read as a decree. In my view, an interpretation of law is not error apparent to subject a judgment for review. Review cannot be brought on an interpretation which the revision petitioner pleads is correct interpretation of law. Even if there was a judgment Archana Arora 2013.10.09 14:20 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh RA-CR No. 141-CII of 2013 in CR No. 7505 of 2012 2 passed by this Court which was patently erroneous on an application of law, I would still find that the judgment rendered by this Court does not state the law wrongly against the judgment of the Supreme Court in the manner convased in Kanwar Singh Saini's case (supra). In that case the party made an undertaking and the suit was disposed of in terms of the undertaking. The statement of the party which was recorded by the Court was as follows:-
"Neither I have threatened the plaintiff nor I will dispossess him as I have already sold the suit property vide sale deed. The suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed as there is no merit in the same."
The Court, however passed an order as follows:-
" Statement of the plaintiff is recorded on a separate sheet. Statement of defendant is already recorded. Keeping in view of the statements of parties, the suit of the plaintiff is disposed of. (emphasis supplied). Parties are bound by their statements as given in the court. No orders as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room."
In this case, the nature of order that has been passed when an undertaking was given reads thus;
The plaintiff has also made the statement that in view of the statement made by defendants, she does not want to proceed further with the present suit and her sons would not interfere in the suit Archana Arora 2013.10.09 14:20 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh RA-CR No. 141-CII of 2013 in CR No. 7505 of 2012 3 property. In view of the statement made by the plaintiff, present suit is hereby dismissed (emphasis supplied) and the defendant is bound by the statement made in the court."
2. It makes all the difference, a suit which is dismissed is not to be taken as a decree for enforcement in the very same proceedings. I have already observed that this undertaking must only be taken as giving a fresh cause of action, for, the plaintiff cannot put through in execution a decree of dismissal. There is no scope for review.
3. The review application is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 5, 2013 archana Archana Arora 2013.10.09 14:20 I am the author of this document High Court Chandigarh