RA No.61-C of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA No.61-C of 2009 (O&M) in RSA No.392 of 1991 Date of Decision: 5.11.2009 Baldev Singh ..Appellant Vs. Gurbachan Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant-applicat. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) has been moved for review of the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2009 passed in RSA No.392 of 1991 titled Baldev Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh & Ors. The applicant seeks the review of the order on the plea that the suit by the appellant was filed for declaration, injunction and possession of land measuring 30 kanals 19 marlas i.e. half share of 61 kanals 17 marlas of share of Smt.Kishan Kaur deceased in which she had only life interest in view of the Will dated 27.11.1973. In the suit sale deed dated 21.2.1979 RA No.61-C of 2009 2 Ex.P.2 executed by Harnam Kaur in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 was not challenged as she was still alive, and therefore, the finding regarding this in the judgment and decree were beyond the scope of the suit and therefore, the judgment and decree deserve to be reviewed. This contention on the face of it is unsustainable. Mere observation in the judgment and decree qua the facts brought on record cannot be said to be a ground to review the judgment and decree as this court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below and therefore, it cannot be said that this court travelled beyond the pleadings and the relief claimed in the suit. Mr.P.N.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant thereafter sought review on the plea that this court wrongly held that the suit was barred by limitation as the limitation for possession was 12 years and not 3 years and also that the finding of this court on the question of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code is also not sustainable in law. Admittedly, these contentions cannot be a ground for review of a judgment. Consequently, finding no merit in the review application is dismissed. 5.11.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge