Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raman Kumar vs Davinder Kumar & Others on 27 January, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
CM No.1190-C of 2011 and
RA No.9-C of 2011 in
RSA No.1412 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.1190-C of 2011 and
RA No.9-C of 2011 in
RSA No.1412 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 27, 2011
Raman Kumar
.... Appellant
Versus
Davinder Kumar & others
.... Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. T. S. Doabia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. I. P. S. Doabia, Advocate for the applicant-respondent.
****
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Respondents have filed instant review application for review of order dated 05.10.2010 passed by this Court whereby RSA No.1412 of 2009 filed by non-applicant-appellant Raman Kumar was allowed. Alongwith review application, application for additional evidence bearing CM No.1190-C of 2011 has also been moved.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-respondents and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the applicant-respondents vehemently contended that mutation Exhibit P-5 (Annexure P-1) was never sanctioned and it was erroneously observed by this Court in the impugned order that the said mutation has been sanctioned. The contention is misconceived and cannot CM No.1190-C of 2011 and RA No.9-C of 2011 in RSA No.1412 of 2009 -2- be accepted. It is not mentioned in mutation Exhibit P-5 that it was not sanctioned. Now Annexure P-1 is sought to be produced wherein there is a footnote that in Parat Patwar (copy of Patwari) there is no order of Circle Revenue Officer regarding sanction or rejection of this mutation. However, admittedly there is no such footnote in document Exhibit P-5 produced in the evidence. For this reason, document Annexure P-1 is sought to be produced by additional evidence by making CM No.1190-C of 2011. However, this prayer cannot be allowed. Such additional evidence cannot be admitted in review application for review of order passed in regular second appeal disposing off the same. In addition to it, it has not been asserted that even in Parat Sarkar i.e. original mutation in the office of Circle Revenue Officer, there is no order of sanction or rejection of the mutation. In the absence of any such assertion, it cannot be said that mutation Exhibit P-5 was never sanctioned. Moreover, mutation is not the basis of title. On the contrary, sale certificate was issued in favour of Roshan Lal, original plaintiff and the said sale certificate is the basis of title derived by Roshan Lal.
Learned counsel for the applicant-respondents also contended that in the impugned order, this court observed that properties conveyed to respondents are not described by Khasra number, but being houses, the same have been described by boundaries and, therefore, non-description of the said properties by Khasra number would not affect the case of respondents. This contention is also misconceived and untenable. It has been observed in the impugned order that the documentary evidence placed on record by respondents does not connect or link the property allotted to CM No.1190-C of 2011 and RA No.9-C of 2011 in RSA No.1412 of 2009 -3- them as per their conveyance deeds with the suit property. This conclusion is not shown to be erroneous in any manner. There is no document on record to connect the properties contained in conveyance deeds of the respondents with the suit property which admittedly bears Khasra No.480/2.
Learned counsel for applicant-respondents also referred to document Annexure P-4 and contended that there was some dispute regarding the property even before the rehabilitation authorities and since the property was allotted to respondents prior in time than its allotment to Roshan Lal plaintiff, respondents have a prior right. The contention is again misconceived because properties conveyed to respondents are not linked with the suit property.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant review application as well as application for additional evidence. Impugned order of this court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record, nor there is any other sufficient ground for review of the said order. In fact, under the garb of review application, the appeal has been re-argued for which there is no justification. No ground within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the review application as well as the application for additional evidence is dismissed.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 27.01.2011 'raj'