Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Lekh Ram – Appellant
Versus
Ami Lal (Deceased) Through His Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J.
CM-3605-C-2025
1. This is an application filed for condonation of delay of 103 days in refiling the review application.
2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and delay of 103 days in refiling the review application is condoned.
CM-3604-C-2025,
CM-3606-C-2025 to CM-3608-C-2025 in/and
RA-RS-17-2025 in RSA-3428-1985
1. The present order would dispose of the review application bearing No.RA-RS-17-2025 filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review of the judgment dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed in RSA-3428-1985, application bearing No.CM-3604-C-2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the review application, application bearing No.CM-3607-C-2025 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC for impleadment of the applicant namely Shaan Lohia as well as application bearing No.CM-3608-C-2025 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for placing on record Annexures A-15 to A-18 by way of additional evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that the grandfather of the applicant had purchased 5 biswa out of
The court established that review applications must demonstrate clear errors on the record, not mere legal interpretations or disagreements with prior judgments.
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
Point of Law : Provisions of clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41CPC. Said rule applies when Court feels that production of any document or examination of any witness is necessary to enable it to pronou....
Amendments altering the fundamental nature of a case are impermissible; evidence must align with pleadings for consideration in civil litigation.
A transferee pendente lite cannot maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, and the executing court must prioritize res judicata objections before proceeding.
The Appellate Court cannot remand a case without meeting the specific criteria outlined in the Civil Procedure Code, particularly under Order 41, Rules 23, 23-A, or 25.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C regarding the admissibility of additional evidence in the app....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
