SATYANARAYAN & ANOTHER Vs. INDARSINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the judgment of this Court dated 22/7/2013 passed in SA No.590/2008 is required to be reviewed since this Court has not properly appreciated that the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit since the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners were of the value of more than 10 lakhs. He has further submitted that Dhulji was the sole owner of the property in view of Sec. 4 read with Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act in which his sons had no birth right.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, it is found that the above judgment of this Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. So far as the first issue about pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court is concerned, the arguments which the counsel for petitioner has advanced in this review was also advanced at the time of admission of the Second Appeal and it has been duly considered and decided by this Court in the above judgment. The petitioners cannot be permitted to repeat the same argument in review.