Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balram And Ors vs Lal Chand And Ors on 30 May, 2022
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RA-CR-206-CII-2014 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 30.05.2022
Balram and Others ..... Petitioners
versus
Lal Chand and Others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate for the applicant-
respondent No.1
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral):
CM-1088-CII-2020:
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 33 days
in filing the application for restoration of the review application is
condoned.
CM disposed off.
CM-1090-CII-2020:
This is an application for restoration of the review application
to its original number.
PARKASH CHAND
2022.05.31 12:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and the review application is restored to its original number.
With the consent of the learned counsel, the review
application is taken up for hearing today itself.
RA-CR-206-CII-2014:
The present review application has been filed for review of
the order dated 11.11.2013 vide which the civil revision was allowed
holding that the Trial Court was rendered functus officio as the decree had
attained finality.
The suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondents was
decreed on 15.10.1996. The matter had gone up to the Apex Court and
was decided on 07.11.2003. Thereafter an application was moved before
the Court below seeking amendment of the plaint as well as the decree
which was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2012. The present revision
petition challenging the order dated 19.12.2012 was allowed by this Court
on 11.11.2013 after hearing both the counsel and the impugned order was
set aside. The said order dated 11.11.2013 is sought to be reviewed in the
present application.
Learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.1 contends
that since the area of certain khasra numbers was wrongly typed and one
khasra was omitted while drafting the plaint, hence, it was necessary to
amend the plaint.
PARKASH CHAND
2022.05.31 12:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
It has been repeatedly held in various judgments that the
jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be
entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied
that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. It appears that in the garb of
the present review application learned counsel for the applicant-
respondent No.1 wants to re-argue the entire case. A review application
has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise
whereas all the pleas had already been raised while disposing off the
revision petition. The plea now canvassed by the counsel for the
applicant-respondent No.1 is not an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying this Court to exercise its power of review.
In view of the above, the present review application is
dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
30.05.2022 (ALKA SARIN)
parkash JUDGE
NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
PARKASH CHAND
2022.05.31 12:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
