Civil Revision No. 7317 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7317 of 2011 Date of decision:- 29.11.2011 Manmohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gobind singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. This revision petition is under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 05.10.2007 and 18.7.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 09.1.1992 is illegal, null and void as respondent Gobind Singh has played a fraud in executing the sale deed in question. The petitioner was declared 100% blind vide certificate dated 15.5.1999 by the Eye Specialist of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. In the year 1992, he was 80% blind. It is alleged that taking the advantage of blindness and illiteracy of the petitioner the sale Civil Revision No. 7317 of 2011 -2- deed dated 09.1.1992 was got executed. Subsequently, on 23.11.2005 this land was further wold to one Kamaljeet Singh. After the grant of stay in the civil suit, the land was sold to Zora Singh. An application was given to the Revenue Officer for correction of the khasra girdawari. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the plaintiff for granting ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property forcibly. On notice of the suit and application the defendants filed the written statement. They claimed to be in possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 09.1.1992. The possession of the plaintiff was denied. The property was joint and all the co-sharers were in possession according to their own share. At the time of sale, the eye sight of the plaintiff was normal. After executing the sale they were put in possession of the suit property. The mutation on the basis of the said sale has been sanctioned in favour of the defendant. The subsequent sale made to one Kamaljeet Singh was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know about the sale dated 09.1.1992 on 18.4.2007, the fact that he came to know has been denied. This application has been rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana on the ground that the sale deed dated 09.1.1992 was registered in favour of the defendant. The mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the defendant. The Civil Revision No. 7317 of 2011 -3- plaintiff remained silent for over 15 years and has filed a suit in the year 2007, is indicative and the fact that he has executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant and put him in possession. He has led no evidence to show that he was blind in the year 1992. On appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court have been affirmed by the Additional District, Ludhiana by dismissing the appeal on 18.7.2011. No grounds to interfere in the orders dated 05.10.2007 and 18.7.2011 is made out. No question arises for admission of this revision. The civil revision is dismissed. November 29, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE