Kirpal Singh Now Deceased Thr His Lr Sukhvir Singh v. Manpreet Singh And ORS.

CR No. 6908 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-6908-2025 (O&M) Decided on: 26.09.2025 Kirpal Singh(deceased) through his LR Sukhvir Singh. ......Petitioner

Versus

Manpreet Singh & Ors.

......Respondents CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate For the petitioner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The petitioner herein is one of the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff, Kirpal Singh, in Civil Suit No. CS-481 of 2000 titled "Kirpal Singh through LRs v. Manpreet Singh & Ors.", before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Moga. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 05.04.2025, while the counter-claim of defendants No.1 to 4 was partly decreed. 2.

Subsequently, an application (Annexure P-2) was moved before the trial Court under Section 114 read with Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC, seeking review of the judgment and decree for carrying out amendments to determine the respective shares of the parties in electric connection No. T1-6. However, the trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the said application. The present petition has been filed assailing that order.

3.

From the record, it is evident that the plaintiff, Kirpal Singh, had sought a declaration claiming ownership and possession of agricultural tube-well connection No. T1-6. He further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession, or from shifting/ transferring the connection from the name of one defendant to another.

JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.26 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of 2 Pages

CR No. 6908 of 2025 4.

As correctly noted by the trial Court in the impugned order, the plaintiff had never claimed any relief for determination of the parties' shares in the disputed connection. In such circumstances, the petitioner, being one of the LRs of the deceased plaintiff, could not seek a review of the judgment after final adjudication of the suit, especially when no such relief had been prayed for in the plaint.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 26.09.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.26 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 2 Pages