Jagir Kaur (D) Through Lrs And ANR v. Ajan Singh (D) Through Lrs And ORS

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:17.09.2019 Jagir Kaur (D) through LRs and another ... Appellants Vs.

Arjan Singh (D) through LRs and others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate for review applicant/appellant No.1(ii)-Paramjit Kaur. Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The review application tantamounts to re-agitating of the grounds of appeal which is not permissible in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association vs. S.K.Roy, The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and another" 2016 (9) SCC 366. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:- ''Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to re-open concluded adjudications. This Court,

{2} in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under:

11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.''

The appellant-plaintiffs failed to prove on record nature and character of entire property other than 22 bighas 10 1⁄2 biswas at the hands of Puran Singh to be ancestral. This Court had already formed an opinion that other part of property, Puran Singh derived from other collateral.

{3} interference. Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Mr. Rakesh Chopra, learned counsel for the nonapplicant/respondents no.1 to 3 has pointed out certain clerical error in penultimate paragraph of judgment that it should have been substantial question nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent-defendants and only substantial question no.1 in favour of appellants. The same is ordered to be corrected.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 17, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No