Manjit Kaur v. Nirmal Kaur And ORS

RA-RS No.63-C of 2016 (O&M) in -1RSA No.4463 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-RS No.63-C of 2016 (O&M) in RSA No.4463 of 2012 Date of Decision.12.12.2016 Manjit Kaur .......Applicant/Appellant Vs Nirmal Kaur and others ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) Notice in the application.

Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

The counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the appellant had lost the case yet the appeal bearing RSA No.1860 of 2013 at the instance of defendant No.1 has been filed. Record of the aforementioned regular second appeal is enclosed with the present application.

RSA No.1860 of 2013 has been filed at the instance of defendant No.1 who has already won the case as act of her agent had already been held to be void, as the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by the agent is of 15.11.2000 whereas her own sale deed is dated 17.10.2000 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4. It is also a matter of record that against the order of this High Court dated 18.10.2012, the appellant-plaintiff had filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in November, PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.12.19 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RA-RS No.63-C of 2016 (O&M) in -2RSA No.4463 of 2012 2013 and the matter was kept under objections for almost 3 1⁄2 years. The same came to be dismissed on 5.1.2016. Thus, reasoning given for delay of 1258 days cannot be attributed to the failure of the judicial system but it is voluntarily act. No explanation has come forth as to why objections were not cleared for 3 1⁄2 years. Perhaps it was no only adoption of delaying tactics but appears to be an apparent collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, owing to the pendency of the appeal. I do not intend to recall the order as the order dated 18.10.2012 is based upon appreciation of fact of how the plaintiff would be deriving any interest when the original owner was not having the title and interest for setting aside the sale deed as the sale deed of defendant Nos.2 to 4 has been executed by the principal herself i.e. the owner-defendant No.1, which has been upheld.

No ground for interference is made out. The review application is dismissed both on account of delay as well as on merits. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 12, 2016 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.12.19 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document