Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.