Allahabad High Court
Smt. Chandrani Devi (In Sapl ... vs Pati Rakhan & Anr. on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 121 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Chandrani Devi (In Sapl 144/2017)
Opposite Party :- Pati Rakhan & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amol Kumar,Jatin Gajwani,Paltoo Ram Gupta,Shivanshu Mishra
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Amol Kumar, learned counsel for the review petitioner.
2. The office has reported delay in filing the application. Considering the grounds taken in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW (C) No.3 of 2020, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The sole argument advanced by the review petitioner is that it has inadvertently been mentioned in paragraph-11 of the judgment that Rajrani had executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent whereas the review petitioner was claiming on the basis of sale deed executed by one Rajeshwari.
4. The facts as shown in the paragraph-3 of the petition are that one Brij Mohan had only two daughters namely Rajrani W/o Anirudh Prasad and Ramlali W/o Swami Dayal @ Dondhey. Both the daughters had half of the shares each in the property of Brij Mohan. After his death the respondent had claimed half of the property on the basis of sale deed executed on 18.04.1978 by Rajrani. Rajeshwari @ Rajrani had filed a suit for cancellation of said sale deed vide Regual Suit No.229 of 1978.
5. In paragraph-8 of the judgment and order dated 03.02.2021 for review, the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent have been recorded in which it is mentioned that he has submitted that Rajrani had executed the sale deed of her half portion. In paragraph-29 it is mentioned that Smt. Rajrani and Smt. Rajeshwari were impleaded as defendants no.1 and 2 both showing the wife of Anirudh Prasad. But subsequently the name of Rajeshwari was got deleted from the suit. Paragraph 29 is extracted below:-
"29. It was mentioned in paragraph 15 of the Suit that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are the real sisters whereas in the suit itself, a copy of which is available in the lower court record, it was mentioned in paragraph 3 and 7 that Smt. Rajeshwari and Ram Lali were real sisters and daughters of late Brij Mohan. Even then Smt. Raj Rani and Smt. Rajeshwari were impleaded, as defendant nos.1 and 2, both showing the wife of late Anirudh Prasad. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants seems to be correct that Smt.Raj Rani and Rajeshwari were one and the same lady and both the names were of Smt. Raj Rani and the other sister was Ram Lali. Subsequently the name of Smt. Rajeshwari was got deleted also from the suit. It smacks of some mischief, which is required to be considered."
6. In view of above, there is no error apparent in the judgment under review, which may call for review by this Court. Therefore, the review petition is misconceived and lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
.............................................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.)
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
Haseen U.
