Jagtar Singh vs Chanan Singh

S.C. Mital, J.—The salient facts relating to this petition under Order 47, rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, for review of my judgment dated 5th November, 1974 are that the Execution Second Appeal 415 of 1970 Jagtar Singh v. Chanan Singh, was heard ex parte qua Chanan Singh in particular by me on 12th November, 1971, and it was allowed. The application for setting aside exparte order filed by Chanan Singh objector was allowed and the appeal was heard again. Mr. R.S. Amol, Learned Counsel for Chanan Singh argued the case at length. Upon a reconsideration of the entire matter, I by my judgment dated 5th November, 1974, again allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower appellate Court.

The present review petition is filed by Kulwant Singh son of Chanan Singh. It is averred therein that Chanan Singh died on 25th December, 1973, but his legal representatives were not brought on record. Learned Counsel for Jagtar Singh, auction-purchaser vehemently urged that Jagtar Singh had no knowledge of the death of Chanan Singh. Even thereafter, Chanan Singh was represented by his counsel Mr. R.S. Amol, who as said above, argued the case at length. Even Mr. R.S. Amol, did not at any stage inform the Court of the death of Chanan Singh. As regards the contention of the Learned Counsel for Kulwant Singh petitioner that the decision of this Court dated 5th November, 1974, allowing the appeal of Jagtar Singh is a nullity, the Learned Counsel for Jagtar Singh, invited my attention to Ram Kishan Vs. Kartar Singh and Others, laying down, that decree passed by High Court after one of the dependent''s death is not a nullity, it may, be erroneous or contrary to law. A Division Bench decision of Lahore High Court in AIR 1928 112 (Lahore) was relied on. The same view was expressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Nachhatar Singh v. Babu Khan and others 1972 P.L.J. 541. I, accordingly, overrule the contention of the Learned Counsel for Kulwant Singh petitioner.

The next question is, whether a ground for review of my judgment dated 5th November, 1974, has been made out or not. The present petition has been filed under Order 47, rule 1, CPC but no mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason has even been hinted at for reviewing my judgment. It bears repetition that it was passed after hearing at length Learned Counsel for Chanan Singh deceased in particular.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.