IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3831 of 1998 Date of Decision:16.02.2026 V.K. Sharma ...Applicant-Appellant Versus Poonam Sardana and others ... Non-Applicant/Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-appellants.

Mr. N. S. Boparai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Jangra, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Anand Chhiber, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ateevraj Sandhu, Advocate, Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Name of respondent No.4 deleted vide order dated 14.09.1999.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

C.M. No.1644-C of 2026 Application is allowed as prayed for.

RA-RS No.82 of 2025 (O&M)

1. The present review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the applicant-appellant (plaintiff) seeking review of the judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the regular second appeal filed by the applicant-appellant was dismissed.

2. The applicant-appellant seeks review of the judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed in the regular second appeal by contending that the same suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record due to mis-appreciation and non-consideration of material evidence.

3. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the applicant-appellant, contends that the admission of documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3 does not establish the case of the non- applicants-respondents (defendants). It is submitted that the non-applicants- respondents have taken contradictory stands regarding permission to transfer the suit property. He refers to documents Ex.D-2 dated 29.06.1984 and Ex.PW-6/A dated 05.07.1984, attested on 10.05.1985 to submit that two different permissions to transfer of the suit property are on record, which create inconsistency and that these documents are not properly appreciated by this court. It is further submitted that, on the one hand, non-applicants-respondents pleaded that permission to transfer of the property had not been obtained as the name of the transferee was not known, whereas Ex.D-2 itself mentions the name of the applicant-appellant V.K. Sharma, and they also took the stand that permission was not required after obtaining a no-due certificate, which, according to the applicant-appellant, is inconsistent with the existence of documents Ex.D-2 and Ex.PW-6/A, which indicate that permission for transfer had, in fact, been sought and processed. It is further contended that the zimni order dated 06.04.1985 records the statement of non-applicant-respondent No.3, V.P. Sardana, expressing readiness to execute the sale deed, whereas the conveyance deed in respect of the plot was executed by HUDA in favour of Poonam and Shelly Sardana only on 03.11.1987. It is submitted that, in the absence of a conveyance deed in his favour, the non- applicants-respondents could not have executed the sale deed on 31.07.1985. It is further contended that contradictory stands were taken regarding the indemnity bond, inasmuch as non-applicant-respondent No.3, in his statement dated 06.04.1985, expressed readiness to execute the sale deed, whereas Vimla Sardana, legal representative of Shelly Sardana, while appearing as a witness, has categorically deposed that “it is incorrect that indemnity bond was to be obtained by me”. It is further submitted that non-applicant-respondent No.3 secured the No Due Certificate merely two days prior to filing of written statement by him before the learned trial Court.

4. Learned senior counsel for the review applicant-appellant contends that the zimni orders relied upon have not been correctly appreciated, inasmuch as the first two orders pertain only to chances of compromise, while the order dated 06.04.1985 records the statement of V.P. Sardana expressing readiness to execute the sale deed. It is submitted that thereafter the applicant-appell