IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1411 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 03.03.2010 Mohinder Kumar and others ..Petitioners Versus Ved Parkash and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners . . . This petition has been filed against the order rejecting a Review Application filed by the petitioners. The dispute relates to the property of one Bhagwan Dass, who had mortgaged it to his brother-co- sharer Durga Dass in the year 1929. Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for redemption in 1974, wherein the petitioners were also parties since they were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the aforesaid Bhagwan Dass. The petitioners chose to remain ex parte and the suit was decreed. Thereafter, in execution, the possession of the property was handed over to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. It is at this stage that the petitioners filed an application for review stating that not only the respondents but even they were entitled to the benefit of redemption and thus, they should also have been given possession of their share. It is this application for review, which has now been rejected. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Executing Court declining the Review Application . However, this should not debar the petitioners from CR No.1411 of 2010 (O & M) -2- claiming any right in the property against the respondents by way of independent litigation. With this clarification, this petition is dismissed. Since the main case is decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. March 3, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE