12.09.2025 Dara Singh and ot and others v. Darbara Singh an and others
Case Details
RA-RS No.55 of .55 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH C IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ARH D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117. RA-RS No RSA-2734 Date of De S No.55 of 2025 (O&M) in 2734-2025 (O&M) of Decision:12.09.2025 Dara Singh and ot and others ... Applicants-Appellants Versus Darbara Singh an and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARI MARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Legal Reasoning
second passed by this Court in regular second appeal, which stoo stood dismissed. 2. The primary ground on which the re The ore the the review is sought is that before the 1st Appellate Cou te Court, the applicants-appellants had ts had filed an application under Orde
Arguments
Present: Mr. vocate Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate Mr. A for the applicant-appellants. for *** *** AMARINDER S RAL) ER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.11314- -C of 2025 ed for. Application is allowed as prayed for. Appl Documents are taken on record, subj Docu , subject to all just exceptions. RA-RS No.55 of .55 of 2025 1. The present review application unde The d with n under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 4 and 151 CPC has been filed by th eeking by the applicants-appellants seeking review of the jud he judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed
Decision
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC CPC to lead additional evidence viz; p drive, viz; proving memory card, pen drive CD containing vi ing video regarding existing position assage osition of Khasra No.139 and passage situated in the Ea the East of Khasra No.139 by examini Studio. amining the proprietor of Ravi Studio It is alleged that t that the said application remained un rted to ned undecided and was not adverted to while dismissing issing the appeal by the learned 1 ed 1st Appellate Court. It is furthe further PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.55 of .55 of 2025 (O&M) -2- submitted that all hat alleged encroachment on the part ts was e part of the applicants-appellants was claimed on the ba the basis of judgment and decree date e dated 06.08.2013 and on the basis o asis of report of the lo the local commissioner vide which s were which the applicants-appellants were declared in illegal illegal possession of six marlas and th ught to and thus, a fresh demarcation ought to have been conduc onducted. Further, in the present app in the nt application, grounds as raised in the second appeal are eal are reiterated. 3. 4. Heard. Hear The additional evidence at the appell The itted as appellate stage is not to be admitted as a matter of right b right but only on satisfaction of the co ule 27 the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, namely: (a) (a) the court from whose decree th refused cree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence idence which ought to have been ad king to een admitted; (b) the party seeking to produce additiona ditional evidence establishes that notw e such at notwithstanding due diligence such evidence was no as not within his knowledge or co of due or could not, after exercise of due diligence, be prod e produced at the time of trial; or (c) es such (c) the appellate court requires such evidence to prono pronounce judgment or for any other other substantial cause. It also is also not disputed that that the law requires that such an rily be ch an application must ordinarily be disposed of at the f at the time of hearing of the appeal appeal, by a reasoned order, before o fore or along with the fin the final judgment. 5. However, the argument raised by lea How licants- by learned counsel for the applicants appellants with with respect to non-consideration ducing ration of application for producing additional eviden vidence by the learned 1st Appellate C ellate Court, has no merit, as a perusa perusal of grounds of reg regular second appeal before this C he said this Court clearly reveals that the said ground was not ta not taken in the appeal itself and thus t in the d thus, by raising such argument in the review petition w tion would tantamount to re-argue the ue the appeal, which is not the scope o cope of review under Ord Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.55 of .55 of 2025 (O&M) -3- 6. It is trite that review jurisdiction is It is not be tion is extremely limited. It cannot be invoked to re-ar argue or re-appreciate evidence ossible idence, nor to substitute a possible different view. A ew. An “error apparent on the face anifest, face of the record” must be manifest self-evident and n t and not one requiring elaborate argum ellants arguments. The applicants-appellants cannot be allowed llowed to reopen the appeal under th on’ble der the guise of review. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Union of India v. Sandur Manga 13) 8 anganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337 has l has laid down certain principles w not be iples when the review will not be maintainable:- “(i) (i) A repetition of old and overru gh to verruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. reop (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequentia (ii) ential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be e (iii) aring be equated with the original hearing of the case. of th (iv) Review is not maintainable unles (iv) R st on unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermine the ts in mines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. misc (v) A review is by no means an (v) A y an an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and c erron nd corrected but lies only for paten atent error. error (vi) The mere possibility of two vie (vi) be a o views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. grou (vii) The error apparent on the face (vii) be an face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and error and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence (viii) ence on record is fully within th n the domain of the appellate court, it can doma nced t cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. in th (ix) Review is not maintainable whe (ix) when the same relief sought at th t the time of arguing the main matter had time had been negatived." 7. There is no explanation as to why Ther not be o why aforesaid ground could not be taken by the app e applicants-appellants in the regula hereas regular second appeal itself; whereas PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RA-RS No.55 of .55 of 2025 (O&M) -4- other grounds as as taken in the regular second app lt with d appeal have already been dealt with by this Court in th rt in the judgment dated 12.08.2025, w wed. 025, which is sought to be reviewed. 8. No ground is made out to exercis No g review exercise the limited scope of review jurisdiction by thi by this Court. Consequently, the revi e review application is dismissed. (AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE September 12, 20 Pankaj* , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.17 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh