JOGGI RAM Vs. SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated revision petitions, arising out of the same impugned order between the same parties, by means of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition.

(2.) THE matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petitions and emanating from the record, is that respondents -plaintiffs Sewa Singh, Jita Singh sons of and Parmali daughter of Chander Bhan and another (for brevity "the plaintiffs"), have instituted the civil suit, bearing No.91 of 1998 (in short "1st suit") (subject matter of CR No.1596 of 2003) against petitioners -defendants Joggi Ram s/o Sheo Chand and others (for short "the defendants"), for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners and in possession of the suit land. At the same time, the defendants (in 1st suit) have also filed another civil suit, bearing No.69 of 2000 (for brevity "2nd suit") (subject matter of CR No.1534 of 2003) against the plaintiffs (in 1st suit) for a decree of possession. In the wake of application and with the consent of the parties, both the suits were ordered to be consolidated, vide order dated 26.9.1996 by the trial Court. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court decreed the 1st suit filed by the plaintiffs and they were declared owners and in possession and defendants were restrained from dispossessing them and from alienating the land in dispute in any manner, presumably, the 2nd suit filed by the defendants (in 1st suit) was dismissed, by way of common judgment and decree dated 15.6.2000.

(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, they have filed their separate appeals along with the applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeals. The appellate Court did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeals as time barred, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.11.2002. They still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petitions to challenge the impugned orders of appellate Court, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC.