IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.156 of 2009 and Civil Review No. 9 of 2009. Date of decision: 21.8.2009 Telu Ram. …. Petitioner Versus Capt.S.P.Kohli and ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Shri Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner has filed this Review Petition seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court on 2.8.2006 in RFA No.149 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Sh.Sumeet Walia. Sh.Sumeet Walia had filed a suit claiming possession of the suit land comprising Khasra No.275 measuring 19 biswa, Khasra No.278 measuring 4 bighas 6 biswas, Khasra No.280 measuring 1 biswa, Khasra No.285 measuring 8 biswas, Khasra No.276 measuring 2 biswas 2 (total 5 bighas 16 biswas), Khasra No.169 measuring 15 biswas, Khasra No.524/286 measuring 2 bighas 16 biswas situated at Mouja Shoghi, Tehsil and District Shimla and land comprised in Khasra No.3 measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas situate at Mouja Krairoo, Tehsil and District Shimla. The suit filed by Sh.Sumeet Walia was decreed and appeal was filed by two of the defendants which appeal was rejected though on different grounds. The present petitioner was not a party to the civil suit or the appeal. The case set up by the petitioner is that in fact much prior to the filing of the suit, he had purchased 8 biswas of land out of Khasra No.524/286 measuring 2 bighas 16 biswas in all from Sh.Brij Lal Kohli predecessor in interest of the parties in RFA No.149 of 2006 on 21.1.1993. According to him, he came to know about the decree passed in favour of Sh.Sumeet Walia fact only when he came to Shoghi to raise construction and, therefore, the delay in filing the review. The petitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings and it is obvious that he is not bound by any findings given in the said proceedings. The petitioner has his independent right to establish his right, title and interest 3 in the suit property in accordance with law. It is clarified that the judgments to which he is not a party cannot in any way adversely affect the rights of the petitioner, if any, in the land. It is obvious that the remedy of the petitioner lies not in filing the review petition but by filing independent proceedings to establish his right which he may do so in accordance with law. With these observations, the review petition and the application for condoning the delay in filing the same are rejected as not maintainable with liberty reserved to the petitioner to establish his right in accordance with law. August 21, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge