IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No. 168 of 2010 with Civil Review No.169 of 2010. Date of decision: 5th July, 2011. 1. Civil Review No.168 of 2010. Bilwa Mangal and others .. Petitioners. Versus Lal Singh and others .. Respondents. 2. Civil Review No.169 of 2010. Bilwa Mangal and others .. Petitioners. Versus Lal Singh and others .. Respondents. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo. Surinder Singh, J (Oral). Both the above titled review petitions arise from the judgment passed in RSA No.164 of 1995 and RSA No.214 of 1995, by this Court on 8.10.2010. These review petitions are barred by 16 days, as such, two applications, i.e., CMP(M) 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - No.1511 of 2010 in Civil Review No.168 of 2010 and CMP(M) No.1514 of 2010 in Civil Review No.169 of 2010, have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay precisely on the ground that after obtaining the copy of the judgment sought to be reviewed, the petitioners discussed the matter with an Advocate at Delhi and also at Shimla. After due discussions and deliberations, the petitioners were advised to file review petitions. The above contention is supported by the affidavit of Shri Bilwa Mangal, one of the petitioners. 2. Prima facie, the contentions raised in the applications constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the review petitions, as such the delay in filing the present petitions is hereby condoned. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of. Civil Review Petitions No.168 of 2010 and 169 of 2010. 3. Heard. 4. In both, RSAs No.164 of 1995 and 214 of 1995; on hearing the arguments advanced by the respective learned Counsel for the parties, the substantial questions of law which were already framed earlier at the time of admission of these appeals were not found to have been - 3 - involved, thus this Court framed the following substantial question of law: “If one or more mortgagors redeem the entire land where the remaining co-mortgagors have not contributed towards the mortgage amount can resist the application for passing of the final decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and what remedy would be available to the non-redeeming mortgagees?” 5. During the arguments, learned Counsel for the parties even placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court and also other High Courts as mentioned in para 11 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, which were accordingly answered by this Court in the concluding para of the judgment. 6. Earlier the parties were represented by very senior Counsel, namely Shri Ajay Kumar for the appellants and Shri K.D. Sood for the respondents. But now, the petitioners have changed their counsel, and have taken a different stand in the review petitions which was argued on merits. According to Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate, now representing the review petitioners, co-mortgagor cannot be allowed to get his share after an indefinite period, even if a redeeming mortgagor is holding the land as surety but even for - 4 - redemption there is some limitation, whereas in the present case, there has been a compromise decree having attained finality, thus the position is altogether different. Since these facts were not brought into the notice during the arguments advanced to the Court, which resulted into error apparent on the face of the record. To support his arguments, he cited the judgments: Rambilas Rai (Singh) v. Ramji Rai (Singh), [AIR 1960 Patna 562], Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd., v. The State of Bihar [AIR 1965 Calcutta 308], M.N.Subramania Mudaliar and others v. Shanmugham Chettar and others [AIR 1968 Madras 48 ], Kartik Chandra Bera v. Bhusan Chandra Guria [AIR 1977 Calcutta 52], Smt. Jnanada Debi v. Nath Bank Ltd.(in Liquidation) [AIR 1979 Calcutta 246], Abdul Hasan v. Param Kirti Saran and others [AIR 1983 Allahabad 182] and Pioneer Engineering Co., v. D.H. Machine Tools [AIR 1986 Delhi 165]. 7. Certainly, no such arguments were advanced at the time of final hearing of the above mentioned Regular Second Appeals and otherwise also in the background facts of the case(s), no such point arises. The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission are altogether different from the points now taken in review - 5 - petitions and when the matter was finally heard, the line of arguments of the learned counsel for the parties was altogether different which was the basis for reframing the substantial question of law as mentioned in para-10 of the judgment sought to be reviewed and to answer that both the learned counsel for the parties assisted this Court by citing the law to come to the final conclusion as arrived at in para-15 of the said judgment. Therefore, the contentions now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking review cannot be allowed. Therefore, both these petitions are dismissed in limine. 8. However, at this stage, it came to notice that a typographical/ clerical error crept in para-15 at page-10 in the second line of the judgment passed in RSA No.164 and 214 of 1995 decided on 8.10.2010. In exercise of powers vested under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this error is ordered to be corrected, the word “land” after word “suit” be deleted and in third line after word “suit” in the same para and page, the word “land” shall be added so as to complete the sentence and convey the proper sense. This order shall be a part of the judgment passed in RSA No.164 of 1995 and RSA No.214 of 1995 decided on 8.10.2010, which fact be reflected in - 6 - the last page of judgment at the end in red ink by the Registry of this Court. 9. Both the review petitions are accordingly disposed of. ( Surinder Singh ) July 5, 2011. Judge (rc)