Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh And Others vs Pritam Kaur (Deceased) Through Lrs And ... on 29 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
117 CR-1289-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision :29.04.2026
RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
PRITAM KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners- defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira, whereby the application under Section 152 CPC, 1908 filed by the plaintiff for appropriate amendment in the relief clause of the judgment dated 19.10.2009, passed by Smt. Rajni Chhokra, Civil Judge, Zira, was allowed. Vide the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, the learned Court allowed the application preferred by the plaintiff and carried out the necessary correction, holding that the plaintiff is also entitled to symbolic possession of the suit land, and accordingly the relief clause of the judgment and decree was amended to that extent.
MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-1289-2026 (O&M) -2-
2. Admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration along with a prayer for symbolic possession, claiming to be the owner in possession of land measuring 45 Kanals 04 Marlas, being 1/3rd share in the total land measuring 135 Kanals 02 Marlas, duly described in the plaint as well as in the title of the suit. Plaintiff had sought relief for declaration along with symbolic possession of her share in the suit land.
3. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira, the learned Trial Court accepted the claim of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff and legal heirs of Kashmir Singh and Roor Singh are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit land. The sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 16, to the extent of the 1/4th share of plaintiff in the suit land, were set aside vide the said judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009.
4. Petitioners-defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 2010 before the First Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.09.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, being time barred.
5. Admittedly, the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009 has attained finality between the parties. Subsequently, in the year 2019, an application under Section 152 CPC, 1908 was filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the relief clause of judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the application is time-barred, having been filed after 10 years of passing of the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009. It is asserted that a relief not granted by the Court has MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:07 to be treated as consciously denied and, therefore, the same cannot be termed as I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-1289-2026 (O&M) -3- clerical or arithmetical error. It is further contended that the Court, vide the impugned order, has erred in exercising powers under Section 152 CPC by amending the relief clause of the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009.
7. On consideration, I find that no interference in the present case is warranted. The correction made vide the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 is merely clarificatory in nature, and the relief of symbolic possession already stood encompassed in the relief of declaration granted to the plaintiff- respondents. Admittedly, it was the case of the plaintiff that she along with her brothers-defendants, had succeeded to property owned by her father to the extent of 1/3rd share.
8. On consideration, it was found that the estate of the father of plaintiff was to be shared between all the siblings, including LRs of Roor Singh, Balkar Singh and Kashmir Singh (defendants) and accordingly plaintiff was held entitled to 1/4th share. It was declared that plaintiff is the owner of 1/4th share in the suit property owned by her father. Therefore, by virtue of the said declaration, it is clearly made out that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land in her capacity as co-sharer as suit property was joint with the defendants. Plaintiff had thus got her rights duly protected by way of declaration. Therefore, the amendment/correction made by the learned Court below vide order dated 06.11.2025 is clarificatory in nature and does not make any difference to the final operation of the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2009. Accordingly, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed being without any merit.
MANOJ KUMAR 2026.04.29 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-1289-2026 (O&M) -4-
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly.
29.04.2026 (PARMOD GOYAL)
manoj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
MANOJ KUMAR
2026.04.29 20:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document