R.A No.20-C of 2011 in R.S.A.No.1356 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.A No.20-C of 2011 in R.S.A.No.1356 of 2009 Date of Order: 13th January, 2012 Jasdeep Singh Gill ...Appellant Versus Ravinder Kaur Brar and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advoctae for the applicant-respondent no.1. Mr. J.S.Gill, Advocate, for the non-applicant-appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The applicant-respondent no.1 has, filed this petition for review of judgment dated 15.10.2010, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed and judgments and decrees, passed by the courts below were set aside. Counsel for the applicant submits that while allowing the appeal, this Court has not dealt with important submission:- the fact that the decree remained unchallenged by Gurcharan Kaur for a period of 26 years, the written statement, filed by Gurcharan Kaur in the second suit, her statement before the Registrar, the fact that the appellant did not challenge the ground of dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation before the first appellate court and the failure of the appellant to challenge the legality of the will before the first appellate court. It is also submitted that while disposing of C.M.No.11495 of 2009, as infructuous, an observation that the order shall not have any bearing on the complaint filed by Mohinder Kaur before the Bar Council for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union R.A No.20-C of 2011 in R.S.A.No.1356 of 2009 -2- Territory of Chandigarh, should be deteted. Counsel for the non-applicant-appellant, on the other hand, submits that the points raised by the applicant-respondent no.1 relate to the merits of the case and cannot be raised in review. If the applicant is aggrieved by any part of the impugned judgment, he should file a Special Leave Petition. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and am of the firm opinion that grounds raised in the present application are misconceived, except to the extent of observations recorded by this Court while disposing of C.M.No.11495 of 2009. The plea that this Court, while accepting the appeal, has not considered certain significant aspects, is factually incorrect. The arguments have been considered and dealt with in detail. By way of the points raised in the review application the applicant in essence seek a rehearing of the appeal as they relate to the merits of the findings and do not disclose a failure to deal with arguments addressed by the appellant, on an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, while dismissing the application, for review, the observation in the judgment dated 15.10.2010 appearing at page 17, to the following effect shall stand deleted:- “However, this application shall have no bearing on the complaint filed by Mohinder Kaur before the Bar Council for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh” . The review petition is consequently, disposed of with the above, deletion from the judgment dated 15.10.2010. 13th January, 2012 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE