On the basis thereof, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
On 06.04.1993, the appellants herein filed a joint written statement in the above civil suit.
D 5/2008.
The said order was challenged before this Court by the appellant by companytending that the matter was settled by a lawful companypromise by recording the statement by appellants companynsel and the respondents companynsel and the respondent companyld number resile from such companypromise and, therefore, the High Court ought to have disposed of the appeal in terms of the companypromise.
vs. Rajinder Singh and Others, 2006 5 SCC 566, the term instrument used in above referred Gurpreet Singhs case supra refers to a writing a formal nature, this Court explained that when the hearing of letters patent appeal companymenced before the High Court, the parties took time to explore the possibility of settlement and when the hearing was resumed, the appellants father made an offer for settlement which was endorsed by the companynsel for the appellant also.
In view of the above objections, the learned single Judge heard the review petition both on merits and its maintainability at length.
The said land falls in Khasra No.
By pointing out that the companycession given by the companynsel for the appellants before the High Court was number lawful and in violation of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and that the second appeal was disposed of without hearing on substantial questions of law framed by the Court, the appellants filed Review Petition C No.
Aggrieved Colonel Sukhdev Singh came up in appeal to this Court by way of special leave.
The questions which arise for companysideration in these appeals are Whether Review Petition C No.
65 in Village Chak Gainda, Tehsil Kathua from one Gurdas by way of a registered sale deed dated 18.03.1959.
1 herein and South, Lane 460 situated at Ward No.1 Village Chak Gainda, Tehsil Kathua and further sought decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein in the suit land.
Challenging the same, the appellants filed Second Appeal No.
110/65 with the boundary between the lands thereunder and Survey No.
Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent.
Aggrieved by the final orders dated 18.03.2008 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal and the order dated 08.09.2008 in the review petition, the appellants filed the present appeals before this Court by way of special leave petitions.
Brief facts Shri Harbans Lal, father of the appellant No.1, purchased the land in dispute measuring 40 kanal 4 marlas bearing Khasra No.
19 of 2005 and Review Petition C No.
Vide judgment dated 18.03.2008, the second appeal was disposed of by the High Court by modifying the decree with the companysent of both the parties.
D 5 of 2008 respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeal and the review petition filed by the appellants herein.
10939 of 2008 was filed by the appellants herein before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.05.2008.
Whenever proprietary land of either parties falls on other side of the trees to form part of Opposite Party land stands companyceded to each other by respective parties over which their claims would be deemed to have been abandoned.
A petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed Civil First Appeal No.6 in the Court of District Sessions Judge, Kathua.
The respondent was also present there and made a statement accepting the offer.
The learned single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 08.09.2008, dismissed the review petition filed by the appellants.
Even before the High Court, an objection was raised as to the maintainability of the review petition by pointing out the following objections a that once the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, the review was barred under O. 47 Rule 1 Sub Rule 1 of C.P.C. b that application is time barred, period of limitation prescribed for filing review in terms of Rule 66 Sub Rule 3 of JK High Court Rules is 30 days.
They further companyceded that whatever of their respective land falling on either side would number be claimed by them and the Sheesham and Shreen trees would be respondents property to be cut by him within a reasonable period of time.
The present appellants filed Second Appeal No.
No companyts.
Against the said order, a special leave petition bearing L.P. C No.
The trial Court, vide judgment dated 25.04.2003, dismissed the suit filed by the respondent herein.
The first appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 09.06.2005, set aside the judgment and order dated 25.04.2003, passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent.
The plot of Sudhir Kumar the respondent herein is on the southern side of the land of the appellants.
In the present appeal, the appellants challenged number only the dismissal of the review petition but also final judgment in second appeal filed before the High Court.
D 5/2008 before the High Court for review of the order dated 18.03.2008 passed in Second Appeal.
17/Civil/1991 in the Court of sub Judge, Kathua seeking a declaratory decree to the effect that he is the owner and in possession of the suit land measuring and bounded by East Kathua Kalibari Road 90 West Police Line measuring 96, North Land of Bakshi Dev Raj appellant No.
Sadhna Rai Smt.
109/65 belonging to other side being the Sheesham and Shreen trees currently existing on the spot.
19 of 2005 before the High Court of Jammu Kashmir at Jammu.
With these factual details, let us companysider the questions posed in the earlier paragraphs.
Based on the above submissions by both the companynsel, the High Court modified the impugned decree in the following manner The suit of respondent plaintiff is decreed restraining other side from interfering or causing any interference or encroaching upon any portion of his land measuring 11 kanals 12 marlas under survey No 110/65 along with his other proprietary land whatever existing on spot.
On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been companyverted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub rule 1 of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC.
ii Whether the statement of the companynsel companyveying that the parties have settled and modified the decree without a written document or companysent from the appellants is acceptable?
By order dated 14.05.2008, this Court after hearing the companynsel for the appellants passed the following order Learned companynsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw the petition.
10939 of 2008 dated 14.05.2008 by this Court filed against the said Second Appeal?
Against the said order of the High Court, the appellants preferred the above said SLP before this Court.
The High Court directed that the appeal would number be heard on merits as the respondent was number prepared to abide by the proposed companypromise.
109/65 and the same was recorded in the name of the father of the appellant No.1 and after his fathers death the name of appellant No.1 was recorded from Kharif 1987.
On 29.04.1991, the respondent herein filed a civil suit being No.
For example, it may be rejected as barred by time, or ii being a defective presentation, iii the petitioner having numberlocus standi to file the petition, iv the companyduct of the petitioner disentitling him to any indulgence by the companyrt, iv the question raised by the petitioner for companysideration by this Court being number fit for companysideration or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court of the companyntry and so on.
The petitioner therein filed an appeal in the Court of Additional Distruct Judge, Hoshiarpur.
c that review application can be maintained only if some evidence or matter has been discovered and it was number within the knowledge of petitioner when the decree was passed or where there was a mistake or an error apparent on the fact of record.
A companytention was raised with reference to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as CPC and Order XLVII sub rule 1 of Rule 1, ultimately, after finding that the question raised is number a question of law and number an error apparent on the face of the record, dismissed the review petition.
Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and number while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal.
While companystruing Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, this Court companycluded thus Under Rule 3 as it number stands, when a claim in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or companypromise, the companypromise must be in writing and signed by the parties and there must be a companypleted agreement between them.
The sheesham and shreen trees existing on spot would be the boundary line between two parcels of land belonging to rival sides as aforementioned with the exact demarcating line running from centre of trees, which would be property of respondent plaintiff to be cut by him at an appropriate time without undue delay.
The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate companyrt in the revision.
The said offer and acceptance were number treated as final as the appeal was number disposed of by recording those terms.
19 of 2005 is maintainable in view of dismissal of SLP C No.
On 21.05.2008, the appellants filed a review petition being Review Petition C No.
D 5/2008 filed before the High Court against the judgment in Second Appeal No.
Sathasivam,J. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders dated 18.03.2008 and 08.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir at Jammu in Civil Second Appeal No.
The companynsel made a statement on 15.09.1995 that the petitioner did number intend to proceed with the appeal.
