IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN RSA-1139-1989 Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Gurnet Singh .… Non-applicant/appellant Versus Sh. Aale Singh deceased through LRs and others .... Review-applicant/respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for review-applicant/respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The applicant-respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 have filed the main review application bearing RA-RS-6-2026 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 and 151 CPC, for reviewing/recalling the order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure R-1) passed by this Court whereby the main second appeal was allowed.

2. Along with the main review application following 07 civil miscellaneous applications have also been filed:-

3. Briefly stated, the appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by both the District Courts whereby the suit filed by the appellant for possession by redemption of suit land measuring 40 kanals 5 kittas, had been dismissed. Vide order/judgment under review dated 09.12.2025, the main appeal was allowed on merits after hearing learned counsel for both parties; and the judgments and decrees of the both the District Courts were set aside; and suit of the plaintiff/appellant for possession by redemption stands decreed. 4. Learned counsel for review-applicants, inter alia, submits that most of the respondents who were arrayed initially in the array of respondents had expired during the pendency of main appeal which remained pending for about 36 years. As such, their legal representatives are needed to be impleaded as necessary parties for the purpose of granting them an opportunity of being heard prior to passing of order dated 09.12.2025. Further, ld. counsel submits that as per his information no notice has been received by the LRs of the deceased respondents with regard to the final hearing of the appeal. It is submitted by ld. counsel for the review-applicants that he had also made sincere efforts to intimate the parties with regard to fixing of the hearing of case but needful could not be done. Therefore, it is prayed the present review application bearing No. RA-RS-6-2026 along with accompanying applications bearing Nos. CM-1619 to 1625-C-2026 be allowed and order dated 09.12.2025 be reviewed.

5. No other argument is made on behalf of the review-

applicants.

6. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the review-applicants. It is not the case of the review-applicants that their case and/or interest is different from the remaining respondents who were heard at the time of passing the order dated 9.12.2025. Moreover, case was argued on behalf of all the respondents; and it is admitted by learned counsel for the review applicants that submissions were duly noted and have been dealt with in the order under review.

7. In any event, it is established position in law that a review application is not meant to permit the review-applicants to re-argue the entire case and raise the points that could have been raised during the final hearing. The order dated 09.12.2025 was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the review-applicants. Merely because some of the respondents have expired during the pendency of the main second appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to review the order dated 09.12.2025. An order passed by this Court can be reviewed if there is manifest error on the face of the record meaning thereby that there is a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment. No such error has been pointed out by learned counsel for the review applicants either in the Review Application, or at the time of arguments. The Review Application is not meant to re-agitate arguments or pleadings that were omitted during the hearing of the main matter. As such, I find no such error in the order dated 09.12.2025. Rather, as noted above