Ravinder Kaur and Others Ravinder Kaur and Others v. Harjot Singh
Case Details
2025 in RA-RS-84-2025 in 2025 (O&M) RSA-3793-2025 -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RA RA-RS-84-2025 in RSA-3793-2025 (O&M) RSA Date of Decision : 01.12.2025 Date of Decision : Ravinder Kaur and Others Ravinder Kaur and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Harjot Singh (deceased) through LR Harjot Singh (deceased) through LR ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Radhika Deekshay, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Radhika Deekshay for the appellants. MANDEEP PANNU, J. MANDEEP PANNU, J. -.- 1. The applicants have filed the present review application under Order The applicants have filed the present review application under Order The applicants have filed the present review application under Order The applicants have filed the present review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by this 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by this 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by this 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by this Court in RSA No. 3793 of 2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed in limine. Court in RSA No. 3793 of 2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed in limine. Court in RSA No. 3793 of 2025 whereby the appeal was dismissed in limine. 2. It is stated that the RSA had been preferred against the judgment and It is stated that the RSA had been preferred against the judgment and It is stated that the RSA had been preferred against the judgment and It is stated that the RSA had been preferred against the judgment and and the decree dated 31.10.2019 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur and the decree dated 31.10.2019 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), decree dated 31.10.2019 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), . The applicants judgment dated 23.09.2025 of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The applicants judgment dated 23.09.2025 of the District Judge, judgment dated 23.09.2025 of the District Judge, e dismissing the RSA, erred in holding that limitation contend that this Court, while dismissing the RSA, erred in holding that limitation e dismissing the RSA, erred in holding that limitation contend that this Court, whil
Legal Reasoning
had not begun to run against the plaintiff and that the defendants never pleaded had not begun to run against the plaintiff and that the defendants never pleaded had not begun to run against the plaintiff and that the defendants never pleaded had not begun to run against the plaintiff and that the defendants never pleaded adverse possession. It is further averred that the written statement specifically adverse possession. It is further averred that the written statement specifically adverse possession. It is further averred that the written statement specifically adverse possession. It is further averred that the written statement specifically e such plea was taken the Courts below were contained a plea of limitation and once such plea was taken the Courts below were e such plea was taken the Courts below were contained a plea of limitation and onc required to determine when limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act required to determine when limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act required to determine when limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act required to determine when limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act commenced. The review application further asserts that the distinction between commenced. The review application further asserts that the distinction between commenced. The review application further asserts that the distinction between commenced. The review application further asserts that the distinction between fendants No.2 to 5, who defendant No.1, who was alleged to be a licensee, and defendants No.2 to 5, who defendant No.1, who was alleged to be a licensee, and de defendant No.1, who was alleged to be a licensee, and de TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 in RA-RS-84-2025 in 2025 (O&M) RSA-3793-2025 -2- - that as per were pleaded to be trespassers, was not considered. It is further stated that as per were pleaded to be trespassers, was not considered were pleaded to be trespassers, was not considered was always the pleadings of the plaintiff, possession of defendants No.2 to 5 was always the pleadings of the plaintiff, possession of defendants No.2 to 5 the pleadings of the plaintiff, possession of defendants No.2 to 5 adverse and hostile. Further, that the plea of adverse possession sto adverse and hostile. Further, od admitted in that the plea of adverse possession stood admitted in ndants terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act since the plaintiff described defendants terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act since the plaintiff described defe terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act since the plaintiff described defe that the Court failed to appreciate the No.2 to 5 as trespassers. It is further stated that the Court failed to appreciate the that the Court failed to appreciate the No.2 to 5 as trespassers. It is further stated effect of the plaintiff’s own pleadings f the plaintiff’s own pleadings and that the amendment sought und er Order and that the amendment sought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected on a technical ground despite settled law requiring 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected on a technical ground despite settled law requiring 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected on a technical ground despite settled law requiring 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected on a technical ground despite settled law requiring liberal approach. It is also stated that errors apparent on record have occurred in liberal approach. It is also stated that errors apparent on record have occurred in liberal approach. It is also stated that errors apparent on record have occurred in liberal approach. It is also stated that errors apparent on record have occurred in holding that the amendment application was rightly dismissed, and that the holding that the amendment application was rightly dismissed, and that the holding that the amendment application was rightly dismissed, and that the holding that the amendment application was rightly dismissed, and that the judgment overlooks the statutory provisions and the legal position impugned judgment overlooks the statutory provisions and the legal position judgment overlooks the statutory provisions and the legal position judgment overlooks the statutory provisions and the legal position governing adverse possession, limitation, and amendment of pleadings. Hence, governing adverse possession, limitation, and amendment of pleadings. Hence, governing adverse possession, limitation, and amendment of pleadings. Hence, governing adverse possession, limitation, and amendment of pleadings. Hence, review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 is sought. review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 is sought. review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 is sought. his Court Findings of this Court 3. the applicants and perused the Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the Having heard learned counsel for Having heard learned counsel for record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to invoke record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to invoke record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to invoke record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to invoke the limited jurisdiction of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A review is the limited jurisdiction of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A review is the limited jurisdiction of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A review is the limited jurisdiction of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A review is record, maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced earlier despite discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced earlier despite discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced earlier despite discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced earlier despite settled that the review due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason. It is well-settled that the review due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason. It is well due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason. It is well jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction, nor can the Court jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction, nor can the Court jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction, nor can the Court re- appreciate evidence or reconsider findings already recorded in the judgment sought appreciate evidence or reconsider findings already recorded in the judgment sought appreciate evidence or reconsider findings already recorded in the judgment sought appreciate evidence or reconsider findings already recorded in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Mere repetition of grounds which were canvassed at the time of to be reviewed. Mere repetition of grounds which were canvassed at the time of to be reviewed. Mere repetition of grounds which were canvassed at the time of to be reviewed. Mere repetition of grounds which were canvassed at the time of hearing of the RSA or which could have been so canvassed, cannot constitute a hearing of the RSA or which could have been so canvassed, cannot constitute a hearing of the RSA or which could have been so canvassed, cannot constitute a hearing of the RSA or which could have been so canvassed, cannot constitute a eview. ground for review. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 in RA-RS-84-2025 in 2025 (O&M) RSA-3793-2025 -3- - 4. In the present case, a perusal of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed In the present case, a perusal of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed In the present case, a perusal of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed In the present case, a perusal of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed in RSA No. 3793 of 2025 shows that this Court had examined each and every in RSA No. 3793 of 2025 shows that this Court had examined each and every in RSA No. 3793 of 2025 shows that this Court had examined each and every in RSA No. 3793 of 2025 shows that this Court had examined each and every contention raised on behalf of the appellants, including the plea of limitation, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants, including the plea of limitation, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants, including the plea of limitation, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants, including the plea of limitation, the ssion of defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5, the plea of nature of possession of defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5, the plea of ssion of defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5, the plea of nature of posse adverse possession, the effect of the plaintiff having described defendants No.2 to adverse possession, the effect of the plaintiff having described defendants No.2 to adverse possession, the effect of the plaintiff having described defendants No.2 to adverse possession, the effect of the plaintiff having described defendants No.2 to 5 as trespassers, the rejection of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 5 as trespassers, the rejection of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 5 as trespassers, the rejection of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 5 as trespassers, the rejection of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the admissibility and effect of CPC, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the admissibility and effect of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the admissibility and effect of CPC, the application under the sale deed dated 08.07.1974, and the plea regarding lack of authority of the the sale deed dated 08.07.1974, and the plea regarding lack of authority of the the sale deed dated 08.07.1974, and the plea regarding lack of authority of the the sale deed dated 08.07.1974, and the plea regarding lack of authority of the plaintiff. Detailed reasons were assigned while affirming the concurrent findings of plaintiff. Detailed reasons were assigned while affirming the concurrent findings of plaintiff. Detailed reasons were assigned while affirming the concurrent findings of plaintiff. Detailed reasons were assigned while affirming the concurrent findings of ng that the suit was within limitation since both the Courts below and while holding that the suit was within limitation since ng that the suit was within limitation since both the Courts below and while holdi the defendants had never pleaded adverse possession. the defendants had never pleaded adverse possession the defendants had never pleaded adverse possession 5. he principal ground raised in the review petition relates to limitation The principal ground raised in the review petition relates to limitation he principal ground raised in the review petition relates to limitation he principal ground raised in the review petition relates to limitation and the assertion that defendants No.2 to 5 were trespassers since and the assertion that defendants No.2 to 5 were trespassers since 1975. This ve 1975. This very paragraphs 23 to 27 of the RSA judgment. contention was dealt with threadbare in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the RSA judgment. paragraphs 23 to 27 of the RSA judgment. contention was dealt with threadbare in It was specifically held that adverse possession is a distinct plea which must be It was specifically held that adverse possession is a distinct plea which must be It was specifically held that adverse possession is a distinct plea which must be It was specifically held that adverse possession is a distinct plea which must be clearly pleaded and proved ere description as trespassers in the plaint does not, d and proved. Mere description as trespassers in the plaint does not, ere description as trespassers in the plaint does not, elf, constitute an admission of adverse possession under Section 58 of the by itself, constitute an admission of adverse possession under Section 58 of the elf, constitute an admission of adverse possession under Section 58 of the elf, constitute an admission of adverse possession under Section 58 of the Evidence Act. The finding that the defendants never pleaded adverse possession Evidence Act. The finding that the defendants never pleaded adverse possession Evidence Act. The finding that the defendants never pleaded adverse possession Evidence Act. The finding that the defendants never pleaded adverse possession conscious and, therefore, limitation never commenced against the plaintiff, was a conscious and, therefore, limitation never commenced against the plaintiff, was a and, therefore, limitation never commenced against the plaintiff, was a adjudication on merits. adjudication on meri 6. argue the RSA The review applicants are essentially attempting to re-argue the RSA The review applicants are essentially attempting to re The review applicants are essentially attempting to re on the same grounds, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. on the same grounds, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. on the same grounds, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. 7. s regards the contention that the lower Courts failed to distinguish As regards the contention that the lower Courts failed to distinguish s regards the contention that the lower Courts failed to distinguish s regards the contention that the lower Courts failed to distinguish between a licensee (defendant No.1) and trespassers (defendants between a licensee (defendant No.2 to 5), this nd trespassers (defendants No.2 to 5), this aspect too was specifically addressed. The RSA judgment records that even if aspect too was specifically addressed. The RSA judgment records that even if aspect too was specifically addressed. The RSA judgment records that even if aspect too was specifically addressed. The RSA judgment records that even if TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 in RA-RS-84-2025 in 2025 (O&M) RSA-3793-2025 -4- - defendants No.2 to 5 were described as trespassers, the plaintiff had consistently defendants No.2 to 5 were described as trespassers, the plaintiff had consistently defendants No.2 to 5 were described as trespassers, the plaintiff had consistently defendants No.2 to 5 were described as trespassers, the plaintiff had consistently hostile title. The finding that asserted ownership and the defendants never asserted hostile title. The finding that asserted ownership and the defendants never asserted asserted ownership and the defendants never asserted possession remained permissive is a finding of fact based on the evidence already possession remained permissive is a finding of fact based on the evidence already possession remained permissive is a finding of fact based on the evidence already possession remained permissive is a finding of fact based on the evidence already on record. No error apparent on the record in this regard is pointed out. on record. No error apparent on the record in this regard is pointed out. on record. No error apparent on the record in this regard is pointed out. 8. The challenge to the rejection of the amendment application under The challenge to the rejection of the amendment application und The challenge to the rejection of the amendment application und The challenge to the rejection of the amendment application und Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has also been reiterated in the review petition. The RSA Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has also been reiterated in the review petition. The RSA Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has also been reiterated in the review petition. The RSA Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has also been reiterated in the review petition. The RSA judgment already considered the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court for judgment already considered the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court for judgment already considered the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court for judgment already considered the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court for rejecting the amendment. The review applicants rely upon the decisions in rejecting the amendment. The review applicants rely upon the decisions in rejecting the amendment. The review applicants rely upon the decisions in rejecting the amendment. The review applicants rely upon the decisions in Revajeetu Builders and Developers V. Narayanaswamy Revajeetu Builders a and sons and Others Narayanaswamy and sons and Others (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Usha Balashaheb Swami v. (2009) 10 SCC and Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others (2007) 5 . Both these judgments lay down the general principle (2007) 5 SCC 602. Both these judgments lay down the general principle . Both these judgments lay down the general principle that amendments intended to determine the real controversy that amendments intended to and not causing determine the real controversy and not causing injustice should ordinarily be allowed. However, these very judgments also injustice should ordinarily be allowed. However, these very judgments also injustice should ordinarily be allowed. However, these very judgments also injustice should ordinarily be allowed. However, these very judgments also emphasize that amendments which seek to introduce a new and inconsistent plea, emphasize that amendments which seek to introduce a new and inconsistent plea, emphasize that amendments which seek to introduce a new and inconsistent plea, emphasize that amendments which seek to introduce a new and inconsistent plea, or which change the fundamental nature of the defence, may be refused. In the or which change the fundamental nature of the defence, may be refused. In the or which change the fundamental nature of the defence, may be refused. In the or which change the fundamental nature of the defence, may be refused. In the case, the amendment sought to introduce the plea of adverse possession for present case, the amendment sought to introduce the plea of adverse possession for case, the amendment sought to introduce the plea of adverse possession for case, the amendment sought to introduce the plea of adverse possession for despite the defendants having failed to plead the first time at the appellate stage, despite the defendants having failed to plead despite the defendants having failed to plead the first time at the appellate stage, amendment would have such a foundational defence at trial. Allowing such an amendment would have such a foundational defence at trial. Allowing such an such a foundational defence at trial. Allowing such an fundamentally altered the nature of the defence and prejudiced the fundamentally altere plaintiff. Hence, d the nature of the defence and prejudiced the plaintiff. Hence, the reliance on the aforesaid decisions is wholly misplaced, and the distinction the reliance on the aforesaid decisions is wholly misplaced, and the distinction the reliance on the aforesaid decisions is wholly misplaced, and the distinction the reliance on the aforesaid decisions is wholly misplaced, and the distinction drawn in the RSA judgment is correct. drawn in the RSA judgment is correct. 9. Similarly, the reliance upon the proposition that long possession, Similarly, the reliance upon the proposition that long possession, Similarly, the reliance upon the proposition that long possession, Similarly, the reliance upon the proposition that long possession, onstruction of structures, or payment of taxes supports a claim of adverse construction of structures, or payment of taxes supports a claim of adverse onstruction of structures, or payment of taxes supports a claim of adverse onstruction of structures, or payment of taxes supports a claim of adverse possession was rejected with reasons, as reflected in paragraph 26 of the RSA possession was rejected with reasons, as reflected in paragraph 26 of the RSA possession was rejected with reasons, as reflected in paragraph 26 of the RSA possession was rejected with reasons, as reflected in paragraph 26 of the RSA judgment. This Court had already observed that such acts, without clear hostile judgment. This Court had already observed that such acts, without clear hostile judgment. This Court had already observed that such acts, without clear hostile judgment. This Court had already observed that such acts, without clear hostile TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2025 in RA-RS-84-2025 in 2025 (O&M) RSA-3793-2025 -5- - assertion of ownership, cannot constitute adverse possession. assertion of ownership, The review cannot constitute adverse possession. The review applicants have not shown how this finding is erroneous on its face. applicants have not shown how this finding is erroneous on its face. applicants have not shown how this finding is erroneous on its face. 10. The further plea that the sale deed dated 08.07.1974 was wrongly The further plea that the sale deed dated 08.07.1974 was wrongly The further plea that the sale deed dated 08.07.1974 was wrongly The further plea that the sale deed dated 08.07.1974 was wrongly reviously. accepted under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was also considered previously. accepted under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was also considered p accepted under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was also considered p The RSA judgment records that the document was over thirty years old, produced The RSA judgment records that the document was over thirty years old, produced The RSA judgment records that the document was over thirty years old, produced The RSA judgment records that the document was over thirty years old, produced from proper custody, supported by the testimony of the plaintiff's attorney and from proper custody, supported by the testimony of the plaintiff's attorney and from proper custody, supported by the testimony of the plaintiff's attorney and from proper custody, supported by the testimony of the plaintiff's attorney and medical evidence explaining his absence. The review applicants have not shown medical evidence explaining his absence. The review applicants have not shown medical evidence explaining his absence. The review applicants have not shown medical evidence explaining his absence. The review applicants have not shown r apparent in this regard. On careful consideration, this Court finds that all any error apparent in this regard. On careful consideration, this Court finds that all r apparent in this regard. On careful consideration, this Court finds that all r apparent in this regard. On careful consideration, this Court finds that all the grounds raised in the review petition were either expressly dealt with in the the grounds raised in the review petition were either expressly dealt with in the the grounds raised in the review petition were either expressly dealt with in the the grounds raised in the review petition were either expressly dealt with in the argue questions already determined. None of RSA judgment or are attempts to re-argue questions already determined. None of argue questions already determined. None of RSA judgment or are attempts to re orded in the RSA judgment disclose any patent illegality, manifest the findings recorded in the RSA judgment disclose any patent illegality, manifest orded in the RSA judgment disclose any patent illegality, manifest orded in the RSA judgment disclose any patent illegality, manifest evident mistake which would justify exercise of review jurisdiction. error, or self-evident mistake which would justify exercise of review jurisdiction. evident mistake which would justify exercise of review jurisdiction. evident mistake which would justify exercise of review jurisdiction. appreciation of the entire matter, which is beyond The review petition seeks a re-appreciation of the entire matter, which is beyond appreciation of the entire matter, which is beyond The review petition seeks a re the permissible scope of review. the permissible scope o Conclusion 11. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no error apparent on For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no error apparent on For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no error apparent on For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no error apparent on warranting review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed warranting review of the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed the face of the record No. 3793 of 2025. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. in RSA No. 3793 of 2025. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. No. 3793 of 2025. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. 12.
Decision
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 December 01, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.02 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document