The review of judicial judgments emphasizes the reversal of decisions only upon apparent errors, underscoring the need for independent assessments in ongoing trials, particularly concerning claims to property based on wills.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The applicant/petitioner vide the instant Review Petition No.119/2020, under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 (as amended) seeks a review of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 of this Court in CM (M) 828/2018 submitting to the effect that there is an error apparent in para 20 of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018 and that the petitioner would suffer great prejudice if the judgment dated 01.07.2020 to the extent that it observed vide para 20 to the effect

"....that the petitioner herein had disowned the document dated 4.2.1997 before the local police at Chandigarh and had also submitted that late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith was incompetent to execute the Will dated 4.2.1997 as the property at Chandigarh was an ancestral property....."

are not set aside as it would impact the adjudication of the suit before the learned trial Court.

2. inter alia on behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the observations in para 20 of the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018 are not in consonance with the document on the record and the contention that has been raised on behalf of the respondent no.2 to this effect ought not to have been accepted by this Court. It is submitted through para 17 of the present review petition that the observations of this Court as contained in para 20 would pre-empt an independent finding by the learned trial Court.

3. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents. The respondent no.3 is the DDA arrayed as a proforma party in the matter.

4. Submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner and on behalf of the respondent no.1 and on behalf of the respondent no.2 qua the petition vehemently opposing the prayer made by the petitioner.

5. Vide the judgment dated 01.07.2020 in CM (M) 828/2018, this Court declined the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner herein seeking the setting aside of the order dated 31.5.2018 of the learned Additional District Judge-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby inter alia an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, 1908 filed by the respondent No.2 herein through his LRs for the amendment in the written statement was allowed.

6. The facts relating to CM (M) 828/2018 are observed in the judgment dated 01.07.2020 to the effect:

"3. The petitioner in the instant case is the plaintiff of CS No. 56158/16 seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in property bearing No.E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and has also sought mesne profits and rendition of accounts. The claim of the plaintiff i.e., the petitioner herein is that the suit property was owned by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith vide a perpetual lease Deed dated 6.4.1971 and late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith vide a gift deed dated 3.6.1974 transferred his half undivided share in the suit property to the defendant No.1, i.e., the respondent No.1 herein and made his last and final Will dated 4.2.1997 by virtue of which he bequeathed his half undivided share to the defendant No.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein and the remaining half undivided share to the plaintiff. The petitioner further submitted that Sh.Dayal Chand Kaith died on 3.12.1997 and on his death, the plaintiff to the suit, i.e., the petitioner herein and the defendant no.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein now represented through his legal representatives, became the owners of 1/4th undivided share in the suit property bearing No. E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, with the defendant No.1 i.e., the respondent No.1 herein being the owner of 1/2 share of the suit property and thus the plaintiff, i.e., the petitio