BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is petition for review of judgment dated 20.5.19%. Special Leave Petition was filed but the same was withdrawn with a liberty to approach this court in a review petition. The apex Court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn and permitted the petitioner to approach this court within a period of thirty days from the passing of the order and in case he fried such a petition within the stipulated period, question of limitation shall not be raised.

(2.) Petitioner has sought review of judgment dated 20.5.1996 on the following grounds (i) that whereas it is not necessary to have reduced in writing the exchange of land in the State of Punjab but in Jammu and Kashmir exchange of land without writing is not permissible. Since there was no written document with regard to exchange of land in Jammu & Kashmir, judgment dated 20.5.1996 suffers from this infirmity, (ii) the provisions of Transfers of Property Act are not applicable to the State of Punjab and so on this ground too there could not be any exchange of land situate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir with the land within the bound; of State of Punjab; (iii) that as per Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1977 (1920 A.D.) applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, a transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale. Since these matters escaped the notice of the court and otherwise have vital bearing on the point in controversy, the judgment deserves to be recalled and decided afresh in the light of aforesaid objections.

(3.) Notice of this application was given to the respondents who have filed reply to the same. Besides replying on merit, certain preliminary objections too have been raised by the answering respondents. It has- been stated by the respondents that the present review petition is wholly misconceived and otherwise unwarranted as by means of this review petition fresh ground are to be urged which were never raised when the appeal was argued before the court. New points of attack cannot be made basis for reviewing a judgment. The review petition is otherwise misconceived as no affidavit has been filed either by the applicant or by the counsel who argued the main appeal that the points and the grounds now raised were either raised or argued. Plea of limitation too has been taken stating that since the apex court granted the applicant only 30 days to approach this court, review petition is not within time.