C.R.No.7246 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7246 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 08, 2009 Khushi Ram and others ...........Petitioners Versus Dalbir and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.S.Dahiya Advocate for the petitioners. -- Sabina, J. (oral) Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land. Vide order dated 3.10.2007, the defendants were restrained from alienating the specific khasra numbers more than their share in the suit land without getting the same partitioned. In appeal filed by the defendants, the Additional District Judge vide order dated 3.6.2008 held as under:- “2.Counsel for the appellant Sh.R.S.,Sindwani, Advocate has made statement that the appellant will not alienate the land more than their shares and will not alienate the specific killa numbers of land. Without partition, counsel for the respondent Sh. S.K.Garg, Advocate has also made statement that the appeal be disposed off in view of the statement of the appellants so, in view of the statements of counsel for the parties recorded separately, the injunction order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the court of Sh.Sanjay Khanduja, Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jind stands C.R.No.7246 of 2009 2 modified to the effect that the appellants/defendants are restrained from alienating the suit land more than their share and also from alienating any specific portion/killa number of the land without partition. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly. Lower court record along with copy of this order be sent back, where the parties/counsel will appear on 10.6.2008 the date already fixed, appeal file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” Although the said order was passed on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner yet an application for review of the order dated 3.6.2008 was filed. Vide order dated 2.9.2009, the application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the review application filed by the petitioners was liable to be allowed as the party could resile from concessions made as a result of mistake of the counsel. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Purewal and Associates Ltd. and another vs. Punjab National Bank and others AIR 1992 Himachal Pradesh 26; Gautam Sarup vs. Anand Sarup and others (2006-3) PLR 437 and Avtar Singh and another vs. Charanjit Kaur and another 2006(4)RCR (Civil) 878. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the present case, order dated 3.6.2008 was passed on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners. The learned C.R.No.7246 of 2009 3 Additional District Judge rightly held that since the appeal filed by the petitioners was not disposed of on merits and was rather disposed of in view of the statements made by the counsel for the parties, the same was not liable to be reviewed. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that no argument had been addressed by the counsel for the applicant as alleged in the application for review. In these circumstances the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners fails to advance the case of the petitioners. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge December 08, 2009 arya