Ranjit Singh And Others vs Pritam Kaur (Deceased) Through Lrs And ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3929 P&H

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.

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

to be treated as consciously denied and, therefore, the same cannot be termed as

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.

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