CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(2004) 09 P&H CK 0062

Shanti Devi vs Nand Kishore and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 September 2004

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.M.Kumar, J
CASE NUMBER
Review Application No. 59-C of 2003 in Regular Second Appeal No. 3241 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 406 words

M.M. Kumar, J.

1.

This is an application seeking review of the order dated 7.8.2003 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the last but one para of the judgment wherein factual error has crept in and those observations from middle of the para read as under :

"As a consequence the gate which is shown to have been constructed during the pendency of the suit and was encroached upon the plot purchased by defendant respondent No. 8 was liable to be removed by issuing a mandatory injunction as claimed in the counter claim of the defendantrespondents. The suit of the plaintiffappellant has been dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is without any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed."

2.

According to the learned counsel, there has not been any encroachment upon the plot purchased by defendantrespondent No. 8 and in fact the Courts below have not given any such finding. The learned counsel has also argued that the whole judgment is liable to be reviewed.

3.

There is merit in the first contention raised by the learned counsel. It would be evident from the perusal of para 11 of the judgment of the first appellate Court that the construction was raised upon the road in front of the house of Smt. Kamla defendantrespondent 8 who has purchased the plot in dispute. Accordingly, the aforementioned portion of the order shall be read as follows :

"As a consequence the gate which is shown to have been constructed during the pendency of the suit has resulted into an illegal encroachment upon the road in front of the house of defendantrespondent No. 8 Smt. Kamla and the same is liable to be removed by issuing a mandatory injunction as claimed in the counterclaim by the defendantsrespondents. The suit of the plaintiff appellant has been dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is without any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed."

4.

However, I do not find any merit in the other contention that the whole judgment deserves to be reviewed and set aside. No question of law much less a substantive question of law has been raised on the basis of correction aforementioned.

The application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. The officer is directed to carry out the correction in the order dated 7.8.2003 to the extent observed above in the last but one para of the judgment.

Application allowed.