Barfi Ram vs Sunil Kumar and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

This petition has been filed for reviewing the judgment, dated 25.5.2010, of this Court, by which appeal of the petitioner had been dismissed.

A suit was filed by one Munshi Ram, who died during the pendency of litigation, and was, therefore, represented by his legal representatives, for declaration that he had become owner of land, bearing Khasra No. 625, measuring 19 Marlas, on account of his being a mortgagee in possession, for more than thirty years and the period for redemption of mortgage having expired. That suit was against the present review petitioner Barfi Ram. Trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal was filed by Munshi Ram in the Court of District Judge. That appeal was accepted and the suit was decreed. Against the decree of the first appellate Court, a Regular Second Appeal was filed in this Court, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the lower appellate Court has misread and misinterpreted the documentary evidence exhibit D-2 on record and thus arrived at wrong findings?

Whether the appellant-defendant was the tenant over the suit land as per documentary evidence exhibit D-2 and the finding contrary thereto can be sustained in the present case?

This Court dismissed the appeal.

In the review petition it is stated that the mortgage, which had been created in favour of Munshi Ram, was not in respect of the suit land, but some other land and that this fact escaped the notice of the appellant-defendant, when written statement was filed and that this fact came to his notice only after the decision of this Court, in the Regular Second Appeal.

Before the suit was instituted by Munshi Ram, appellant had made an application for redemption of mortgage and in that application subject matter of mortgage was stated to be the same property, which was the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the appellant-review petitioner to say that subject matter of the mortgage was some other property and not the suit property.

It has been submitted, during the course of hearing by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner that there is a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, according to which no period is prescribed for redemption of mortgage. Judgment cited by him is reported in Harbans Vs. Om Prakash and Others, Appeal had not been admitted on a question, whether the review petitioner/appellant was entitled to redeem the mortgage or not, but different questions, as noticed hereinabove. So, there is no scope for review. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed, in view of the dismissal of the main matter.