Prem Singh and Others Vs Karam Singh Deceased and Others

M r . Amitabh Tewari, Advocate fo r appellant No.3. M r . Pankaj Bali, Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. M r . Munish Behl, Advocate for re s pondent No.3. M r . S.S.Swaich, Advocate and M s . Ishani Goyal, Advocate for re s pondents No.5 and 6.

¶12

-.-

¶13

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

¶14

CM-4591-C-2020

¶15

Th e applicants/appellants have f i led the present application u n der Section 5 of th e Limitation Act seeking condo n ation of delay of 324 days in fi l ing the accompanyi n g review application. The case set up by the applicants is that t h ey could not earli e r file the review application as they came to know about the decision dated 2 8.03.2019 only upon being informed in the second week of Ma r ch,

¶16

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

CM-4591-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M) in RSA-839-1987 (O&M)

¶19

2020 . It is furt h er pleaded that thereafter they i m mediately contacted their cou n sel, applied for the certified copies of the judgme n t as well as the power of attor n ey, and upon obtai n ing the same, the present revie w application was filed without any further delay. It is asserted that the delay was n e ither intentional nor deliberate and that refusal to condone the delay would cause g rave prejudice and irreparable l oss to the applicant s .

¶20

Th e respondents have filed a deta i led reply opposing the applicat i on. It has been poi n ted out that the story put forth by the applicants is concocted and that they were fu lly aware of the passing of the j udgment on 28.03.2019 since t h eir engaged couns e l had appeared and argued the matter at length on that date. I t is also the stand of the respondents that the expla n ation given for the delay is wh o lly unsatisfactory, c ontradictory in material particulars, and that no sufficient c a use has been shown to condone such an inordinate d elay. 3. I h ave considered the rival sub m issions and perused the mat e rial placed on rec o rd. It is settled law that wh i le considering an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the L i mitation Act, the Court is requ i red to adopt a justi c e-oriented approach. The lengt h of delay is not, by itself, decis i ve, what is material is whether the explanation fu r nished discloses a sufficient c a use which prevente d the applicant from approachi n g the Court within the prescri b ed period of limit a tion. The expression “sufficie n t cause” should receive a lib e ral construction so as to advance substantial justi c e, provided the explanation is not tainted with ma l a fides or an attempt to deliber a tely delay the proceedings. 4. In the present case, although t h e explanation put forth by the TRIPTI SAINIapplicants is no t free from inconsistencies and m ay not inspire full confidence, yet 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CM-4591-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M) in RSA-839-1987 (O&M)

¶22

it cannot be ig n ored that the matter pertains t o an old litigation involving fa m ily members and t h e delay does not appear to be i n tentional or actuated by mala f ide motives. The r espondents have alleged that t he applicants were aware of the decision from the very beginning, however, t h e applicants have taken a spe c ific stand that they c ame to know only later, and thi s assertion, though doubtful, ca n not be conclusively disbelieved at this preliminary s tage.

¶23

M o re importantly, refusal to cond o ne the delay would result in n onadjudication o f the review application alto g ether, which may cause serious prejudice to th e applicants. The Supreme Co u rt has repeatedly emphasized t hat unless gross n e gligence or deliberate inactio n is clearly established, the C o urt should lean to w ards ensuring adjudication on m erits rather than shutting the d o ors of justice on technicalities of limitation.

¶24

Ke e ping in view the aforesaid l egal position and examining the explanation cu m ulatively, I am of the conside r ed opinion that a case is made out for adopting a l iberal approach. The ends of j u stice would be better served if the applicants are a f forded an opportunity of havin g their review petition examine d on merits.

¶25

Ac c ordingly, without expressing a ny opinion on the correctnes s or otherwise of th e averments made in the applic a tion regarding the cause of de l ay, the delay of 32 4 days in filing the review appli c ation is condoned in the interest of justice.

¶26

Th e application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

- 4 -

¶29

CM-4591-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M) in RSA-839-1987 (O&M)

¶30

RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M)

¶31

Th e present review petition has b e en filed by the applicants see k ing review of the j u dgment dated 28.03.2019 passe d by this Court in RSA No.106 6 of 1987. The revie w petition prays for recall and s e tting aside of the said judgmen t on various ground s which the applicants contend c o nstitute errors apparent on the f ace of the record a nd/or newly discovered mat e rial justifying exercise of review jurisdiction. T h e respondents have filed a d e tailed reply opposing the review petition. The r e ply traverses each ground rais e d in the petition and emphatic a lly contends that the review petition is an attempt t o re-argue the appeal and to re-o p en issues which w ere fairly and finally adjudic a ted in RSA No.1066 of 1987. A rejoinder to the respondent’s reply has been fil e d by affidavit of Jitender Sing h on behalf of the a pplicants, which reiterates th e contentions raised in the review petition. For t h e purposes of decision of t h e review petition, the Court has considered the p etition, the reply, the rejoinder and the record of RSA No.106 6 of 1987, includin g the impugned judgment dat e d 28.03.2019 and considered the respective cont e ntions of both the parties who a rgued on the same line as per t h eir review petition a nd its reply and rejoinder.

¶32

Th e brief procedural background which is relevant for deciding the review petition m ay be stated shortly. The RSA culminated in a speaking judg m ent dated 28.03.20 1 9 in which the Court returned detailed findings on the r i val contentions of t h e parties after hearing counsel and on the basis of the materia l on record. The ap p licants challenge those findin g s by way of this review petit i on. Several points r a ised in the petition revolve aro u nd (i) the alleged want of authority TRIPTI SAINIof certain coun s el who addressed the Court in t h e RSA, (ii) the dates on which the 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

- 5 -

¶34

CM-4591-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M) in RSA-839-1987 (O&M)

¶35

applicants, or t h eir co-appellants, purportedly c ame to know of the judgment, and (iii) alleged leg a l errors in the conclusions dra w n in the impugned judgment. T he respondents’ re p ly deals with each of these c o ntentions and, in particular, dr a ws attention to th e settled legal position restricting the ambit of review, to the existence of p o wers of attorney filed earlier o n the file and to the fact that the impugned judg m ent was a reasoned decision w hich deals with and disposes of the very issues whi c h the applicants now seek to re o pen. 3. It i s necessary at the outset to exa m ine the limited scope of the rev i ew jurisdiction. A r eview petition is not an appeal i n disguise and the Court’s power of review is narrowly circumscribed. Review ju r isdiction exists only to rectify (a) patent or manif e st errors apparent on the face o f the record, (b) mistakes which are self-evident an d do not require elaborate argu m ent or re-appreciation of evidence to be detected, (c) where discovery of new an d material evidence has been m ade which could n o t, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier, or (d) on account of cle r ical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips. Errors w h ich require re-exa m ination of the evidence, re-w e ighing of factual material, or rearguing points w hich have been fully consider e d by the Court are not matters for review. The pe t ition before this Court must th e refore be tested against these w ellsettled paramet e rs.

¶36

Applying those parameters to th e present case, the Court find s as follows. With r e gard to the allegation that cou n sel who argued the RSA were not properly autho r ised and that powers of attorn e y filed subsequently were inv a lid, the record discl o ses that powers of attorney in f a vour of the advocates identifie d by TRIPTI SAINIthe applicants w ere filed in the Registry in Ja n uary 2017. The cause list and the 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CM-4591-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M) in RSA-839-1987 (O&M) - 6 -

¶38

regular lists ov e r the subsequent years indica t e that the appeal remained on the board and was l i sted before different Benches f r om time to time. The mere fact t hat the names of di f ferent Benches or different co u nsel appear on different dates d oes not, of itself, indicate any irregularity or give r i se to an error apparent on the f ace of the record. W here a litigant files a power o f attorney and the advocate app e ars and addresses t h e Court, the question of want of authority is essentially an inte r nal matter between the litigant and the advocate a n d does not automatically invali d ate the proceedings or the judgment unless it is de m onstrably shown that a person w ho had no authorit y at all obtained orders which c ould not have been passed but for his fraud or m i srepresentation and that fact i s manifest on the record. No s u ch palpable and s e lf-evident misrepresentation is established in the present rev i ew petition. The p e tition advances nothing beyo n d a claim that some subseque n tly engaged couns e l was not the counsel who arg u ed the appeal. But that content i on, even if accepte d , would at best be a matter of p rofessional arrangement and w o uld not show an err o r on the face of the record requ i ring review. 5. O n the principal contention that th e re are legal errors in the judg m ent that findings r e turned in favour of the respo n dents were erroneous in law, the review petition invites the Court to examine th e conclusions afresh. The impug n ed judgment is a reasoned and speaking judgm e nt which records the content i ons advanced by bo t h sides, examines the evidence and materials on record and applies the relevant pri n ciples of law. The review peti t ion does not point to any manifest contradiction o r arithmetic/clerical mistake in t h e judgment which would qualif y as an error appar e nt on the face of the record, nor does it produce any new and TRIPTI SAINImaterial docum e nt which could not have been p roduced earlier. The grounds ra i sed 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

- 7 -

¶40

CM-4591-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M) in RSA-839-1987 (O&M)

¶41

are, in fact, an i n vitation to re-open the factual a nd legal determinations made a fter arguments in t h e RSA. That is impermissible in review. Where the Court in the RSA has retur n ed its conclusions after consi d eration of the record, the remedy available, if an y , was to pursue further procee d ings in the appropriate forum ( for example, an ap p eal to a higher forum if maint a inable) but not to use review to reargue points w h ich have been dealt with.

¶42

Th e rejoinder and the petition rep e atedly assert that the earlier Co u rts below and this Court have been mistaken on c e rtain factual facets of the case for example, the n a ture of the family settlement, the status of persons identifie d as members of th e family, and the validity of ce r tain earlier deeds. That conten t ion again raises a n appeal-type grievance which the applicants are impermiss i bly seeking to re-a g itate in a review petition. The Courts below and this Court h ave recorded findi n gs, including findings on fra u d, misrepresentation and on the character of th e transaction relied upon by th e appellants. The applicant has not produced any n ew evidence such as a newly discovered document or a wit n ess statement whic h could not, with due diligence , have been produced earlier w h ich would justify r e opening these findings. The la w does not permit review to serv e as a second heari n g for the re-appreciation of e v idence. In this regard, the C o urt specifically not e s that the review applicants h a ve not pleaded, much less pro v ed, that despite du e diligence they could not earl i er discover any material fact n ow sought to be r e lied upon. The rejoinder mer e ly repeats the contentions already advanced.

¶43

Ce r tain procedural objections hav e been raised about listing and the TRIPTI SAINIpresence/absen c e of the names of advocates in t he cause list and taken-up list. T he 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

- 8 -

¶45

CM-4591-C-2020 in/and RA-RS-28-2020 (O&M) in RSA-839-1987 (O&M)

¶46

Court has exam i ned the listing practice and fin d s that changes of list, differences in the Judges bef o re whom the matter appeared , and the fact that the matter w as periodically list e d do not, in themselves, amou n t to an error apparent on the fac e of the record. The listing arrangement is an admi n istrative function and, unless i t is shown that th e listing produced a procedur a l travesty that caused a manifest illegality, it is n o t a ground for review. No such travesty is made out on the record. 8. In view of the above discussio n , this Court is satisfied that the applicants have not made out any of the narro w grounds which would entitle t h em to review. The p etition seeks re-consideration o f findings of fact and conclusions of law after ful l hearing. It asks for re-openin g of issues which were fully arg u ed before the RS A bench. It does not produce ne w and material evidence that c o uld not have been p roduced earlier despite due dil i gence and it does not point to any patent or self-e v ident error in the impugned jud g ment which requires correctio n on review. To allo w review on such grounds wou l d be to convert review jurisdic t ion into an appellat e rehearing and would be contra r y to established jurisprudence.

¶47

Fo r the reasons mentioned above, t he review petition is without m erit and must be dis m issed.

¶48

Th e review petition is accordingly d ismissed on merits. 11. Pe n ding applications, if any, also s t and disposed of.

¶49

December 11, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶50

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.11 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Prem Singh and Others v. Karam Singh Deceased and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh and Others v. Karam Singh Deceased and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tej Singh Vs Hari Parkash

Seeta Bai and Others Vs Sadha Nand

Satwant and Ors. Vs Bhagwan Dass Sehgal and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs Jagir Singh

M.C. Sangrur Vs Ranbir Singh & Other

Rai Sahib Deceased through His Lrs and Another Vs Karam Singh Deceased and Others