Manoj Kumar v. Bimla Devi

Review Application No.94-C of 2017(O&M) in RSA No.6275 of 2014 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Review Application No.94-C of 2017(O&M) in Regular Second Appeal No.6275 of 2014 Date of Decision: July 24 , 2018.

Manoj Kumar ...... APPLICANT/APPELLANT

Versus

Bimla Devi ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Lalit K.Gupta, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

***** LISA GILL, J.

This application has been filed under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Rule X Chapter 1 Part A(a) of the High Court Rules and Orders Volume V for review/recalling/modifying judgment dated 14.07.2017 whereby the appeal preferred by the present applicant was dismissed.

The applicant had filed Regular Second Appeal No.6275 of 2014 challenging judgments and decrees dated 03.09.2013 and 30.10.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Ambala and the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, respectively. Suit for possession filed by the applicant/ plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.11.2007 and supplementary agreement to sell dated 03.09.2008 with consequential relief OMKAR SINGH 2018.08.07 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Review Application No.94-C of 2017(O&M) in RSA No.6275 of 2014 [2] of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned trial court and the same was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. RSA No.6275 of 2014 filed by the application was dismissed vide a detailed and well reasoned judgment dated 14.07.2017 by a coordinate Bench (since retired).

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks a review of decision dated 14.07.2017 while submitting that it is wrongly observed therein that there was a heavy onus upon the applicant/plaintiff to prove his case by producing Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to raise various other pleas, in fact making an effort to reopen the matter again and argue the appeal afresh. He is unable to point out any mistake or error apparent on the face of it or any sufficient reason whatsoever which calls for review/recall or modification of decision dated 14.07.2017. There is a delay of 93 days in filing of the review application. As the matter has been dealt with on merits, the same is rendered academic. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to make out any case for review/recall or modification of judgment dated 14.07.2017 passed by this Court.

Application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( LISA GILL ) July 24 , 2018.

JUDGE 'om'

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2018.08.07 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh