GURMEJ KAUR @ GEJO Vs. DEEPO @ JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shingara Singh alias Shingara Ram was the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and 12 to 14. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11(A) are his daughter-in-law and grand-daughters. He died on 28.9.1979. On the basis of a Will left by him, his property was mutated in favour of his wife-petitioner No. 1, by Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated 17.3.1980. On 15.1.1986, first respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 392 against the petitioner and other respondents for a decree of joint possession of agricultural land measuring 115 Kanal 11 Marla as also for permanent injunction restraining petitioner No. 1 herein, from alienating the property in dispute in any manner. In that suit, defendant No. 1 (present petitioner) and defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15 and 16 had moved an application on 14.9.1988 under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the Will dated 24.9.1979, allegedly executed by Shingara Singh. Shri A.S. Kathuria, Sub Judge, Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 15.6.1990 dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 (present petitioner) on May 19, 1991 moved an application for a review of the above mentioned order dated 15.6.1990. The learned Subordinate Judge vide his order dated 12.12.1991, dismissed that application also.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 12.12.1991 by way of this revision petition.

(3.) Order 47 Rule 1 provides that any person who considers himself aggrieved : (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed or; (c) by a decision or reference from a Court of Small Causes and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a view of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.