RESHAM SINGH AND ORS Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the plaintiffs/petitioners No. 1 and 2 and Udham Singh (now deceased and represented by petitioner No. 3 as his legal representative) sought declaration that they and proforma defendant No. 3 (since deceased and represented by petitioners No. 4 to 7) were owners in possession of the suit land. However, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 (Annexures P/2 and P/3) inadvertently decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs alone declaring them to be in possession of the suit land as exclusive owners, although the suit should have been decreed in favour of plaintiffs and legal representatives of Sadhu Singh proforma defendant No. 3. It is contended that application (Annexure P/4) moved by plaintiffs for correcting the aforesaid error has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure P/5). The said order has been challenged in the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Notice of the revision petition is not required to be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2, who were defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit because they were proceeded ex parte in the suit and also in application Annexure P/4 moved by the plaintiffs for correction of the judgment and decree 30.08.2006(Annexures P/2 & P/3).

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.