Review Application No. 35-C of 2009 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1997 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Review Application No. 35-C of 2009 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1997 of 2007 Date of decision : September 16, 2010 Ram Kishan ....Applicant/appellant versus Meera Bai ....Non-applicant/respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant/appellant Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Appellant has filed the instant review application for review of order dated 28.11.2008, Annexure P/1, passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harbans Lal (since retired) thereby dismissing RSA No. 1997 of 2007 filed by the defendant-appellant who had lost in both the courts below. Plaintiff-respondent Meera Bai is widow of Ram Sukh who was brother of Ram Kishan apellant. Respondent challenged judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 passed in civil suit No. 311/84 titled Ram Kishan versus Ram Sukh relating to suit land. Admittedly, plaintiff's husband Ram Sukh was owner of the suit land. Respondent-plaintiff Meera Bai sought Review Application No. 35-C of 2009 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1997 of 2007 -2- declaration that decree dated 3.8.1984 and the consequent mutation are illegal and null and void. Defendant-appellant alleged that Ram Sukh suffered decree dated 3.8.1984 because plaintiff Meera Bai had been residing at her parental home. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant vehemently contended that suit filed by respondent has been decreed because the applicant-appellant was not able to produce copies of judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 because the same were not supplied to him in spite of applications having been moved by him for the purpose. The contention cannot be accepted. Perusal of paragraph 5 of the review application reveals that the applicant-appellant applied for certified copy of judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 on 24.12.2003, 13.2.2004 and 12.10.2004. It would depict that for the first time applicant-appellant applied for obtaining certified copies of judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 after decision of the instant suit by the trial court on 7.8.2003. Thus, during the pendency of the suit, the applicant-appellant never tried to obtain certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984. Moreover, even after applications dated 24.12.2003, 13.2.2004 and 12.10.2004 for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984 were returned by the Record Keeper on the ground that the record was not traceable or otherwise, applicant-appellant did not take any step to obtain the said copies till decision of the instant second appeal vide impugned order dated Review Application No. 35-C of 2009 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1997 of 2007 -3- 28.11.2008. Consequently, the mere fact that the applicant-appellant has now been successful in obtaining copy of judgment dated 3.8.1984 is not a sufficient ground to review order dated 28.11.2008. Moreover, it cannot be said that the applicant-appellant has been unsuccessful merely on the ground of non-production of copies of judgment and decree dated 3.8.1984. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that no ground much less sufficient ground for review of impugned order dated 28.11.2008 is made out within the parameters of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The review application is completely misconceived and is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 16, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'