IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-9732-2025 (O&M)

DECIDED ON: 23.12.2025 PALO @ HARPAL KAUR

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

SURINDER KAUR .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present: Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate

for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking revival of Civil Appeal No. 890 of 2017, earlier dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 04.09.2023, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is an illiterate lady who withdrew the appeal on the advice of her previous counsel after having sold the suit property to Hardev Singh and under the belief that nothing survived for adjudication. It has been argued that the petitioner was never made aware of the legal consequence that withdrawal of the appeal would render the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court final and binding. It is further contended that the petitioner came to know about the subsistence of the judgment and decree

only when execution proceedings were initiated and summons were served upon her in July 2025, pursuant to which she immediately took steps to file the application for revival of the appeal. It has also been submitted that the petitioner never intended to abandon her challenge on merits and that the withdrawal of the appeal was neither voluntary in the real sense nor based on informed consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jet Ply Wood Private Limited and Anr. vs. Madhukar Nowlakha & Ors., 2006(3) SCC 699, to contend that even after withdrawal of a suit or proceeding, the Court possesses inherent power under Section 151 CPC to recall such order in the interest of justice.

3. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions and has carefully perused the record. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner, during the pendency of the appeal, made a categorical statement before the learned Appellate Court on 04.09.2023 to the effect that she had already sold the suit property in the year 2013, had received the entire sale consideration, had delivered possession to the vendee, and that she had no concern left with the suit property. Significantly, while making such statement, the petitioner expressly stated that she was withdrawing the appeal without admitting the relationship of the respondent with deceased Karnail Singh. The statement was made in the presence of her counsel and was acted upon by the Court, leading to dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

4. The record further demonstrates that subsequent to withdrawal of the appeal, execution proceedings were initiated and the petitioner actively participated therein by filing objections, which were dismissed by the Executing Court. Even objections filed by the legal heirs of the vendee Hardev Singh were also dismissed, and the execution proceedings attained finality at multiple stages. The petitioner’s participation in execution proceedings belies the plea that she was unaware of the subsistence or enforceability of the judgment and decree. The plea of lack of knowledge, therefore, does not inspire confidence and appears to be an afterthought.

5. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in Jet Ply Wood Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra). However, the reliance placed on the aforesaid judgment is clearly misplaced and the same is distinguishable on facts. In Jet Ply Wood Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra), the withdrawal of the suit was found to be the result of a bona fide mistake and the Court was satisfied that refusal to recall the order would result in manifest injustice, particularly when no rights had crystallised in favour of