Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh Etc vs Amar Singh Etc on 10 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048647
2023:PHHC:048647
RSA-2226-1992(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-2226-1992(O&M)
Date of decision:-10.4.2023
Darshan Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
Amar Singh (since deceased) through legal representative and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.J.S. Virk, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Manish Jain, Advocate with
Mr.Mayur Kanwar, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Amar Singh
and Kartar Chand had filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction
against defendants Kamal Dev, Darshan Singh, Azad Singh and Sarwan
Singh, alleging that they were in possession of suit land measuring 27
kanals 18 marlas as tenants on CHAKOTA under the ownership of
Darshan Parkash etc., however, the defendants threatened to forcibly
dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land on strength of some sale deeds,
as such the plaintiffs had filed the suit in question.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048647
2023:PHHC:048647
RSA-2226-1992(O&M) -2-
2. On getting notice, the defendants No.1 to 3 put in appearance
and contested the suit, whereas defendant No.4 did not appear despite
service and as such was proceeded against ex-parte.
3. As per the version set up by the defendants, Darshan Parkash
etc. had no right, title or interest in the suit land; their names were
wrongly appearing in the revenue record for some time and that mistake
was got rectified; Darshan Parkash etc. could not have granted any
tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs did not come into
possession of the suit land in any capacity; as a matter of fact, the suit
land was owned and possessed by the Government and it was allotted to
Lal Chand son of Mazar Dass from whom defendants No.1 to 3 had
purchased the same vide registered sale deeds dated 24.2.1987 and as such
they came in possession; earlier to them, their vendor Lal Chand was in
possession of the suit land as owner. The defendants admitted that Panjab
Singh son of plaintiff No.1 Amar Singh had got executed sale deed on
11.12.1987 for an area of 8 kanals in khasra No.130R/19(8-0) out of the
suit land from defendant No.4 Sarwan Singh. Raising various other
objections, the claim of the plaintiffs was strongly opposed.
4. Issues on merits were framed and the parties were afforded
opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective claims.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial
Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib decided issues No.3 and 4
in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 holding that allotment of the suit land to
Lal Chand was there; issue No.1 was decided holding that it is proved that
plaintiffs are in possession of the entire suit land; Khasra No.130R/19(8-
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048647
2023:PHHC:048647
RSA-2226-1992(O&M) -3-
0) is in their possession because Panjab Singh son of plaintiff No.1 had
purchased it from defendant No.4, whereas remaining land is in
possession of the plaintiffs as trespassers and that their status as tenants
under defendants No.1 to 3 is not proved. As a result of finding on issues,
the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed against defendants No.1 to 3 with
costs for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the
possession of the plaintiffs over khasra No.130R/19(8-0). The suit was
also decreed with cost against defendants No.1 to 3 for interfering in the
possession of the plaintiffs over khasra Nos.116R/14/2(7-7), 17(7-11),
134R/21(4-0), 135R/25/3(1-0) except in due course of law. This was so
done vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1989
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
defendants No.1 to 3 had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge,
Ropar, notice of which was given to the respondents, who put in
appearance. During the pendency of those proceedings, Azad Singh -
appellant and Gian Chand attorney of other appellants along with their
counsel had made a statement that appellants had already filed a suit for
possession of the land in the Court of Sub Judge, Anandpur Sahib and the
appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn as the same was not to be
prosecuted.
7. In view of such statement, learned District Judge, Ropar vide
order dated 5.5.1992 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
8. Later on, the appellants/defendants had filed an application
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to review order dated 5.5.1992 contending
that the appeal had been withdrawn on wrong instructions on account of
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048647
2023:PHHC:048647
RSA-2226-1992(O&M) -4-
misunderstanding and actually the applicants are in possession of the suit
land.
9. That application was contested by the respondents.
10. Vide order dated 9.10.1992, the application was dismissed.
For ready reference, para No.6 of the order is being reproduced as under:
6. The learned counsel for the applicants had contended that
the applicants had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Civil
Court at Anandpur Sahib and not for possession of the land that
and labouring under misunderstanding, the applicants have been
made to withdraw the appeal. The learned counsel had
endeavoured to seek support from "M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills
Versus The State of Rajasthan and others" AIR 1981 Supreme
Court 1681. But this judgment is not applicable to the facts of this
case. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, had
contended that the said order could not be reviewed. The
contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has substance
in it. In this respect, I seek strong support from "Chiyoda
Corporation Versus National Fertilizer Ltd." 1992(2) PLR Delhi
Section 45. That was a case where a counsel for the plaintiff had
made statement that the plaintiff did not want to proceed against
one of the defendants the suit against the said defendant was
dismissed. Thereafter an application was moved by the plaintiff for
setting aside the order of dismissal and for the restoration of the
suit on the ground that the said statement was made inadvertently
and undermistake. Declining the prayer, it has been held in this
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048647
2023:PHHC:048647
RSA-2226-1992(O&M) -5-
judgment that the Court after passing a decree becomes funtus
officio and has got no power to review and revive its own judgment.
The ratio of this authority is fully applicable to the facts of this case
and so, the prayer to re-hear the appeal after setting aside the said
judgment and decree cannot be accepted. The application is,
therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Being dissatisfied, the defendants have filed the present
regular second appeal before this Court, notice of which was issued to the
respondents, who put in appearance through counsel.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record and I find that there is absolutely no merit in the
appeal.
13. The appellants themselves had withdrawn the appeal from the
Court of leaned District Judge Ropar making a statement that they had
since filed a suit for possession of suit land before Sub Judge, Anandpur
Sahib. The order had been passed in presence of Azad Singh appellant and
Gian Chand, attorney of other appellants with counsel as well as counsel
for the respondents. There could not be any question of misrepresentation
or lack of communication between the appellants and their counsel. It
seems that after making the statement, the appellants had a second thought
and then moved an application for review of the order claiming
themselves to be in possession of the suit land. That application was
dismissed vide a detailed and well reasoned order by learned District
Judge, Ropar. The reasoning given by learned District Judge, Ropar is
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048647
2023:PHHC:048647
RSA-2226-1992(O&M) -6-
cogent and convincing. The order does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity.
14. The appellants having themselves withdrawn the appeal from
the Court of learned District Judge, Ropar, the decree passed by the trial
Court has become final and binding on them and now they cannot
challenge the same by way of filing regular second appeal.
15. The regular second appeal is thus doomed for failure and is
dismissed accordingly.
Since the main appeal is dismissed, the miscellaneous
application(s), if any stands disposed of accordingly.
10.4.2023 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048647
6 of 6
