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 suit property measuring 4 bighas 2 biswa from the legal heir of respondent No.1 namely Om Parkash son of Jawahar Singh, through his GPA holder, by virtue of sale deed dated 03.11.2006 and that the grandfather of the applicant namely Tule Ram had transferred the said land in favour of the applicant namely Shaan Lohia and his brother Dhruv Lohia by way of transfer deed dated 05.09.2022 and the said transfer deed has been annexed as Annexure A-4 along with the present review application. It is submitted that on the basis of the said documents, the applicant wishes to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC in the Regular Second Appeal. It is further submitted that the applicant is an aggrieved person and is thus entitled to seek review of the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by this Court on two grounds. The first submission made by learned counsel for the review applicant is that the jamabandi for the year 1956-57 which had been exhibited as Ex.P-2 and has been annexed as Annexure A-6 along with present review application shows that the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land prior to the consolidation and the said Jamabandi has not been considered by this Court while passing the judgment dated 19.07.2024. Secondly, even the observations made by this Court to the effect that the consolidation proceedings had not been proved, are not in accordance with the documents on record, inasmuch as, the judgments and decrees Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12 (Annexures A-13 & A-14) would show that the consolidation took place about 25 years before the filing of the said suits, which were filed in the year 1981 and thus, the time of consolidation was 1956-57. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant wishes to produce additional evidence as the same would further his case and thus, the same be also taken into consideration.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the review applicant and finds that the review application, application for condonation of delay in filing the review application, application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as well as the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, all deserve to be dismissed for the reasons which have been detailed hereinafter.

4. This Court, vide judgment dated 19.07.2024, had allowed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants-defendants and had dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff-Ami Lal S/o Jia Ram for declaration that he had become owner of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. With respect to the plea of adverse possession, this Court had taken into consideration various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in the case of M.Radheshyamlal vs. V Sandhya and another reported a