Jit Singh Vs Karan Singh and Ors.

By this order, three review ap p lications i.e. RA-RS-28-2021 i n RSA-5588- 2 003; RA-RS-34-2021 in RSA- 5 589-2003 and RA-RS-29-2021 in RSA-55 8 7-2003are adjudicated as they are interconnected and betwee n same partie s . Counsel for the parties have requested to take up and decid e all of them t ogether, hence, all the three ap p lications are taken up together .

¶27

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

2

¶29

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶30

Since the present review applications have been filed in thre e regular sec o nd appeals arising out of diffe r ent suits filed inter se betwee n the parties, two of which, namely Jit Singh Vs. Karan Sing and Ors .(Firs t suit) and Karan Singh and Anr. Vs. Jit Singh and Ors . (second suit)wer e decided to g ether by the trial Court on 30 . 10.2001 and the appeals/cross - appeal arisi n g thereof were also adjudicate d vide order dated 28.10.2003 b y the first Ap p ellate Court and the regular se c ond appeals arising thereof als o came to be a djudicated vide common order dated 30.09.2019 passed by thi s Hon’ble Court. The two set of SLPs were filed which were also dismisse d on 20.11.2 0 20 and 20.01.2021. However, for sake of clarity, the factua l matrix is narrated in a tabulated form as un d er:

¶31

FIRST SUIT

¶32

Date	Title	Relie f	Date of decision
15.06.1989	Jit Singh Vs. Karan Singh and Ors. (CS-360-C)	Suit posse of perfo agree dated for symbolic ssion by way specific rmance of ment to sale 25.06.1979	Dismissed on 30.10.2001 (Issue No.2 to be discussed)
16.01.2003	Jit Singh Vs. Karan Singh and Ors. (CA-8-2001)	Appe order 30.10 al against dated .2001	Dismissed on 28.10.2003
01.12.2003	Jit Singh Vs. Karan Singh and Ors. (RSA-5587-2003)	Appe again 30.10 28.10 al filed st order dated .2001 and .2003	Dismissed on 30.09.2019
16.08.2016	During the pendency of RSA-5587-2003 Jit Singh expired on 31.01.2016.	Appl bring the Singh ication for ing on record LRs of Jeet was filed.	LRs of Jit Singh were impleaded, however, one of the son of Jit Singh, namely, Trilok Singh refused to join

¶33

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶35

3

¶36

as contesting
party and hence was impleaded
as proforma respondent, now the present review applicant.

¶37

SECOND SUIT FILED DURING THE PEDENCY OF THE FIRST SUIT

¶38

Date	Title	Relie f		Date decision	of
15.06.1991	Karan Singh and Anr.Vs. Jit Singh and Ors.(CS-205-C)	Suitf of (and the entitl profit frame or poss agricu in issue questio ed of was d).	ession ltural No.1 n of mense also	Partially allowed granting r of posses 30.10.2001	elief sion
26.11.2001	Karan Singh and Anr.Vs. Jit Singh (CA- 130-2001)	Appe order 30.10 al a .2001	gainst dated	Allowed 28.10.2003	on
16.01.2002	Jit Singh Vs. Karan Singh and Anr. (CA-9- 2001)	Appe again 30.10 al st order .2001	filed dated	Dismissed 28.10.2003	on
01.12.2003	Jit Singh Vs. Karan Singh and Anr. (RSA- 5588-2003)	Appe again 30.10 28.10 al st order .2001 .2003	filed dated and	Dismissed 30.09.2019	on
01.12.2003	Jit Singh Vs. Karan Singh and Anr.(RSA- 5589-2003)	Appe again 30.10 28.10 al st order .2001 .2003	filed dated and	Dismissed 30.09.2019	on

¶39

Against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed in the RS A

¶40

Nos.5587 o f 2003; 5588 of 2003 and 5589 of 2003, SLP(C) No.(Civil) 013962-013964/2020 was filed by LRs of Jit Singh, which was dismissed on 20.11.2020 . In the meantime, an appli c ation for impleadment as part y was moved by two sons of Trilok Singh cla i ming their rights on the basis o f Will of Jit S ingh. The said applications be a ring CM No. 936/2017 in RS A

¶41

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

4

¶43

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶44

No. 5588/2 0 03, CM No. 1015/2017 in RS A No. 5587/2003 and CM No . 1044/2017 in RSA No. 5589/2003 were a lso dismissed vide order date d 27.08.2020. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2020, the sons of Trilok Singh filed SLP(C) No.001329-001334/2021 which also came to be dismissed on 20.01.2021 . After dismissal of SLP execution proceedin g was started in which Trilok Singh filed obj e ctions which was dismissed o n 05.02.2021 and the civil revision against t h e said order was also dismisse d on 14.09.2022 and decree stand executed.

¶45

THIRD SUIT

¶46

Date	Title	Relie f		Date decision	of
29.01.1993	Gulzar Singh Vs.	Suit	for	Dismissed	as
	Karan Singh (CS-58-C)	decla basis settle ration of ment	on the family	withdrawn 03.04.1993	on

¶47

FOURTH SUIT

¶48

Date	Title	Relie f		Date decision	of
08.02.1993	Gulzar Singh Vs. Karan Singh (CS-74-C)	Suit decla basis settle ration of ment	for on the family	Decreed 13.02.1993	on

¶49

On the basis of decree dated 13.02.1993, Gulzar Singh wa s impleaded a s a respondent in the suit filed b y Jit Singh and a co-plaintiff i n the suit file d by Karan Singh. The above f a ctual matrix was duly agreed t o be correct by both the counsel and the argu m ents raised.

¶50

Mr. Nehra, Advocate appea r ing for the review applicant -

¶51

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

5

¶53

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶54

respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to a s “Applicant”), submits that th e present review has been filed on account o f an error apparent on the face o f the record i n the judgment passed by this Court on 30.09.2019. Learne d counsel has emphasized specifically with regard to Issue No.2 (on page 4 o f the judgment) regarding whether the jud g ment and decree obtained b y Gulzar Sin g h against Karan Singh was the result of fraud, was no t adjudicated by the Court.

¶55

Another issue adjudicated qu a mesne profits, which was no t granted by t he trial Court, however, on an a ppeal filed by Gulzar Singh an d Karan Sin g h, which was partly allowed by the first Appellate Court , granting th e m liberty to approach the Co u rt of competent jurisdiction fo r assessment. A preliminary decree was also passed in this regard. However , the above stated issue was not adjudica t ed upon by this Court whil e deciding a l l the three regular second a p peals, which, it is submitted , constitutes a n error apparent on the face of t he record.

¶56

Mr. Nehra places reliance on O rder 20 Rule 5 of the Code o f

¶57

Civil Proce d ure to substantiate his submiss i on that the Court was bound t o adjudicate a nd return findings on all the i s sues framed while deciding th e appeals. H e further relies upon the jud g ment passed by the Hon’bl e Supreme C ourt in “ The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors ." (Civil Appeal Nos. 1346 - 1347 of 20 2 2, paragraph 8.4) and “ Santosh Hazari vs. Purushotam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs” (Civil Appeal No . 1117 of 2001, decided o n 08.02.2001 ) in support of his argument. He reiterates his contention that th e

¶58

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

6

¶60

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶61

Court was u nder an obligation to return fin d ings on each issue raised in th e appeal.

¶62

Per contra, Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing o n behalf of the respondent/non-applicant (herein after referred to a s “responden t ”), submits that the present rev i ew application is mala fide an d abuse of process of law. Learned Senior c ounsel submits that the presen t application has been filed solely to prot r act the litigation. The Senio r counsel co n tends that the primary issue raised by the applicant that th e Court faile d to return findings on all issu e s is contrary to the record. H e relies upon page 6 of the judgment dated 30.09.2019and asserts that th e counsel ap p earing for the appellant, Jit Sin g h, and his legal representative s (LRs) had expressly conceded all other issues and pressed only thos e specifically mentioned in the judgment. T he relevant paragraph reads a s

¶63

under:

¶64

“C ounsel for the parities ha v e conceded that two question s that require determination in the appeal are (i) whether th e appellant has successfully pro v ed that he tendered Rs.10,000/ - for payment to respondent No . 1 on or before 31.01.1980 an d non-payment thereof is due t o failure of defendant No.1 t o received the same. If not so, what are the consequence and (ii ) whether defendant No.1 was under an obligation to send a notice to the appellant rather a notice in writing informing hi m about execution of convey a nce deed in his favour o r knowledge of said conveyance deed on the part of appellant i s sufficient to obligate him to fil e a suit for specific performanc e on expiry of six months from the date of knowledge of sai d conveyance deed, registered i n favour of defendant No.1 o n

¶65

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶67

7

¶68

6.10.1980. ”

¶69

Consequently, an estranged Legal Represe n tatives of Jit Singh cannot no w be permitte d to raise the plea that the Cou r t failed to return findings on al l issues.

¶70

However, as regards to the se c ond argument advanced by th e counsel fo r the applicant that the Court did not record any finding o r discussion o n the issue of mesne profits, learned Senior counsel for th e respondent s submits that the said conte n tion is without merit and i s unsustainable. The suit for possession and grant of mesne profits, filed b y the answering respondent was only partly decreed and that too solely i n relation to p ossession of the property. I n the first appeal (Civil Appea l No.130 of 2001) filed by respondents, t h e first Appellate Court whil e allowing th e appeal returned the following f indings:

¶71

“Resultantly in view of the above discussion and for th e foregoing reasons there is no scope for interference with th e findings recorded by the lower Court so far as relief regardin g possession is concerned and as such the findings of the lowe r Court regarding relief of po s session are affirmed wherea s findings of the lower court regarding mesne profits ar e reversed and set aside. C o nsequent upon affirming th e findings regarding possession of the appeal titled as Jit Sing h Versus Karan Singh is dismi s sed whereas the appeal title d Karan Singh Versus Jit Singh is accepted and in addition t o relief of possession the plain t iffs are held entitled to mesn e profits and for that purpose t he plaintiffs shall apply to th e lower court for conducting an i nquiry regarding mesne profits. Hence it is ordered that preli m inary decree for mesne profit s

¶72

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

8

¶74

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶75

be drawn up and final decree fo r relief of possession be drawn. Parties are left to bear their o w n costs xxxxx”.

¶76

On the strength of the above factual matrix, learned Senio r counsel for the respondent has raised a tw o -fold argument. Firstly, there i s not even a s ingle averment in the review a p plication regarding the issue o f mesne prof i ts. Secondly, the answering re s pondent has never pressed fo r mesne prof i ts and does not intend to do s o in the future. Therefore, an y finding on t h is issue is inconsequential.

¶77

Learned Senior counsel furthe r submits that the conduct of th e applicant is mala fide , as is evident from t he factual matrix. Initially, th e applicant d e liberately chose not to be impleaded as a legal representative o f Jit Singh, a n d was accordingly impleaded only as a proforma respondent . Subsequent l y, an application under Order X XII Rule 10 of Code of Civi l Procedure w as filed by the applicant seeki n g to be impleaded as parties o n the strengt h of a Will allegedly executed b y Jit Singh. The said applicatio n was rejecte d by this Court. Admittedly, t h e sons of applicant also file d Special Le a ve Petitions challenging the or d er dated 30.09.2019 as well a s another ord e r dated 27.8.2020, whereby th e application under Order XXI I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. However, the SLP s were also d i smissed.

¶78

Consequently, an execution petition was filed by th e respondent s . However, despite being fully a ware of the orders passed by th e Courts up t i ll the Hon’ble Supreme Court, T rilok Singh (present applicant )

¶79

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶80

9

¶81

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶82

filed an ob j ection petition in the execution proceedings, which was als o dismissed. A fter the dismissal of objectio n petition, Trilok Singh (presen t applicant) p referred a civil revision No.3 4 8 of 2021 before the Hon’bl e High Court . It was only during the penden c y of the said civil revision tha t the present r eview application came to be fi led. It is submitted that the sai d revision pe t ition has also been dismissed a n d identical grounds were raise d therein.

¶83

Learned senior counsel has ve h emently asserted that the entir e litigation initiated by Trilok Singh and his sons has been conducted by th e same coun s el, and there has been no ple a to suggest estranged relation s between Tr i lok Singh and his sons or with o ther legal heirs. Therefore, thi s entire exercise by Trilok Singh amounts to a n abuse of the process of law.

¶84

The next argument raised by t h e learned Senior counsel for th e respondent i s that it is undisputed that Jit S i ngh had filed a suit for specifi c performanc e , which was dismissed by all Courts, right upto the Hon’bl e Supreme C o urt of India. Furthermore, th e review petition does not rais e any ground seeking review in respect of the suit for specific performance o r the findings returned therein, which ha v e attained finality. Once th e findings in the suit for specific perform a nce have attained finality, th e rights of t h e legal representatives of Jit Singh, including those of th e applicant, h a ve already stand adjudicated. T herefore, even assuming, for th e sake of arg u ment, that no findings were r e turned on the issuesof whethe r the decree b etween Gulzar Singh and Kar a n Singh was obtained by fraud ,

¶85

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶86

10

¶87

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶88

misreprese n tation, or and whether mesne p r ofits were discussed, such non - findings ar e inconsequential to the rights of Trilok Singh, which woul d derive onl y from the rights of Jit Singh, which applicant has failed t o established.

¶89

Lastly, the Senior Counsel su b mitted that the scope of revie w under Orde r XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civ i l Procedure is very limited, an d that no err o r apparent on the face of the r e cord exists, much less an erro r that would adversely affect the rights of t he applicant at this stage. Th e possession o f the property has already bee n taken. He further reiterates tha t he shall no t pursue any claim for mesne pr o fits and prays for the dismissa l of the revie w application with costs. 12. In rebuttal, the learned coun s el for the applicant/responden t No.3 submi t s that the contentions raised by respondent No.2 that there is n o averment i n the review application rega r ding the findings on specifi c performanc e is misplaced. He submits t h at such reconsideration or hi s raising/agit a ting anything qua the findings returned in the suit for specifi c performanc e , would arise only once this re v iew is allowed. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gon e through the entire records. However, befo r e proceeding in the matter it i s imperative to reproduce the Order XL V II Rule 1 of Code of Civi l Procedure w hich reads as under:

¶90

“ 1. Application for review of judgment. (1) Any person considering hi m self aggrieved(a) by a decree or order f r om which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal h as been preferred,

¶91

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶92

11

¶93

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶94

(b) by a decree or order f r om which no appeal is allowed, or

¶95

(c) by a decision on a r ef erence from a Court of Smal l Causes, and who, from the discov e ry of new and important matte r or evidence which, after t h e exercise of due diligence wa s not within his knowledge o r could not be produced by hi m at the time when the decree was passed or order made, o r on account of some mista k e or error apparent on the fac e of the record of for any o t her sufficient reason, desires t o obtain a review of the d ecree passed or order mad e against him, may apply f o r a review of judgment to th e Court which passed the de c ree or made the order.

¶96

(2) A party who is not appeal i ng from a decree or order ma y apply for a review of judgme n t notwithstanding the pendenc y of an appeal by some other p a rty except where the ground o f such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, o r when, being respondent, he ca n present to the Appellate Cour t the case on which he applies f o r the review. Explanation -The fact that the d ecision on a question of law o n which the judgment of the Cou r t is based has been reversed o r modified by the subsequent de c ision of a superior Court in an y other case, shall not be a g round for the review of suc h judgment.”

¶97

It is settled proposition of la w that the compass to entertain a

¶98

review app l ication is very narrow and whil e referring to the precedents th e Hon’ble A p ex Court in the judgment Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Versus State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. (2023 INSC 963), summarized various ke y principles t o prevent review petitions from b ecoming "appeals in disguise” . The same a r e read as under:

¶99

“16. The gist of the afore-s t ated decisions is that: - (i) A judgment is open t o review inter alia if there is a mistake or an erro r apparent on the face of th e record.

¶100

(ii) A judgment pronou n ced by the Court is final, an d departure from that p rinciple is justified only whe n

¶101

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶102

12

¶103

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶104

circumstances of a substantial and compellin g character make it ne c essary to do so.

¶105

(iii) An error which is n ot self-evident and has to b e detected by a proce s s of reasoning, can hardly b e said to be an error a pparent on the face of recor d justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

¶106

(iv) In exercise of the jur i sdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permi s sible for an erroneous decisio n to be “reheard and c o rrected.”

¶107

(v) A Review Petition h a s a limited purpose and canno t be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

¶108

(vi) Under the guise of r eview, the petitioner cannot b e permitted to reagit a te and reargue the question s which have already b een addressed and decided.

¶109

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an erro r which, mere looking at the record should strike an d it should not requi r e any long-drawn process o f reasoning on the poi n ts where there may conceivabl y be two opinions.

¶110

(viii) Even the change i n law or subsequent decision / judgment of a co-or d inate or larger Bench by itsel f cannot be regarded a s a ground for review.

¶111

While considering the revie w application in light of th e peculiar fac t s and circumstances of the case , the following points come out.

¶112

Admittedly, the applicant-respondent No.3, who is one of th e legal repres e ntatives of the appellant-Jit Si n gh, did not join the proceeding s at the stag e when the legal heirs were i mpleaded as parties, and wa s therefore i m pleaded as proforma-responde n t No.3. It is also admitted tha t the sons of t he applicant-respondent No.3 f i led an application seeking to b e impleaded a s parties to the lis, asserting the i r rights based on Will allegedl y executed b y Jit Singh. Further, the applic a nt has not placed any documen t on record t o demonstrate that he was not a w are of the proceedings. It is als o admitted fa c t that, the entire lis has attaine d finality up to the Hon’ble Ape x Court both at the instance of other LRs of Jit Singh as well as on th e

¶113

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶114

13

¶115

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶116

instance so n s of the present applicant.

¶117

In addition to the above, no gr o und has been brought forth tha t could justi f y the maintainability to th e present review applications , especially w hen the applicant cannot clai m any rights superior to those o f Jit Singh. T he well- settled proposition of law as has also been held by th e Hon’ble A p ex Court in the Judgment of Sulthan Said Ibrahim Versus Prakasan& Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 4307 of 2022] that a f ter an impleadment as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC has r e ached finality, particularly in c ases where there had been n o objection r a ised or challenged at the requisi t e stage, any subsequent attemp t to assail s u ch impleadment relying upon Order I Rule 10 CPC is no t permissible and stands barred by the doct r ine of res judicata . The Cour t underlined t hat procedural liberty should n ot be used to reopen finalize d matters, an d allowing such strategies woul d erase judicial finality and fai r adjudicatio n . The relevant paragraph of the j udgment is read as under:

¶118

“54. Thus, as the dictum of the law as extracted aforesai d indicates, the only manner in w hich a decision arrived at by a court of competent jurisdicti o n can be interfered with is b y modification or reversal by t h e appellate authorities. In th e present case, the order for im p leadment of the appellant as a legal heir was made by the Tri a l Court after due inquiry unde r Order XXII, as also observed by the Trial Court in its orde r rejecting the application und e r Order I Rule 10. Evidently, neither any objection was rai s ed by the appellant before th e Trial Court nor any revision was preferred subsequentl y against the said order. Thus, i t could be said that the issue a s regards the impleadment of th e appellant as a legal heir of th e original defendant had attained finality between the partie s and thus the subsequent app l ication under Order I Rule 1 0 seeking to get his name delete d from the array of parties coul d

¶119

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶120

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶121

14

¶122

be said to be barred by r e s judicata. Undoubtedly, th e expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 allows the court to e xercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot b e construed to mean that th e defendant can keep reagitatin g the same objection at differen t stages of the same proceed i ng, when the issue has bee n determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing th e same would run contrary to th e considerations of fair play an d justice and would amount to k eeping the parties in a state o f limbo as regards the adjudicat i on of the disputes.”

¶123

In addition to the above, th e applicant also challenged th e orders pass e d in the execution petition, w hich too have been dismissed . Furthermor e , possession of the property h a s already been handed over t o respondent N o.2 and there exists no error a p parent on the face of the record , nor any m iscarriage of justice warrant i ng the invocation of revie w jurisdiction . The present applications a p pear to be mala fide, as th e applicant/respondent No.3initially chose not to join the proceedings as LR s of the appe l lant and thereafter failed to co n test the applications filed by hi s sons, who c laimed rights on the basis of purported Will. Now, after th e dismissal o f SLPs, applicants cannot be per m itted to reopen the entire issu e under the g u ise of a review.

¶124

It is also pertinent to mention t h at the applicant has not raised a single challenge to the findings returned b y the Courts at all levels in th e suit filed b y Jit Singh seeking specific p e rformance, which has attaine d finality up t ill Hon’ble Apex Court. In the absence of any challenge to th e findings in t he suit for specific performanc e and in view of the fact that th e

¶125

MANJU 2025.07.04 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶126

15

¶127

CM-5537-C-2025; CM-4181-C-2021 in RA-RS-28-2021 in RSA-5588-2003 and connected cases

¶128

applicant cannot be better placed then Jit Singh, the present revie w application s deserve to be dismissed. 20. All the three review applicat i ons are accordingly dismissed , and the ap p licant is imposed with the cost of Rs.10,000/- for each revie w application, amounting to a total of Rs. 30, 0 00, which shall be deposited b y the applica n t-respondent No.3, within thr e e months, Rs.10,000/- each i n

¶129

Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute People,Sector-15, Chandigarh is being run by Chandigarh Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes & Minorities Financial & Development Corporation, Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped Near Housing Board Chowk, Raen Basera Building Manimajra, Sector13,Chandigarh and Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh Plot No.1, Madhya Marg, Setor 28-A, Chandigarh , r espectively.

¶130