LABH SINGH Vs. BANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the Labh Singh etc., the plaintiffs (Labh Singh) had filed an application for amendment of the plaint. After contest, the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Guhla, vide order dated 17-12-1997. The said order was challenged by the plaintiffs in this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 5482 of 1997 which was partly allowed by Hon'ble Sat Pal, J., (as his Lordship then was). The petitioners were permitted to partly amend the plaint with regard to the fact that guardian appointed on behalf of Kaka Singh petitioner did not defend the earlier suit properly. However, with regard to other amendment sought by the petitioners to the effect that earlier suit was not maintainable against the petitioners as the petitioners being Bazigars belong to Scheduled Castes and the suit was not competent in view of the notification dated 23-2-1962, the said prayer was rejected on the ground that the previous notification dated 23-2-1962 was amended by a subsequent notification dated 21-12-1962 and the right of pre-emption was taken away only in he case of sales effected before March 31, 1961.

(2.) After the order dated 28-5-1998 was passed, as referred to above, while disposing of the revision petition, the petitioners filed the present application for review under Order 47, Rule 1, read with S. 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the order dated 28-5-1998, passed by Hon'ble Sat Pal, J. In the petition for review, it was alleged that in fact the subsequent notification dated 21-12-1962 vide which the previous notification dated 2/3-2-1962 was amended, had been misread by the learned single Judge while passing the order dated 28-5-1998. It was alleged that in fact the right of pre-emption in respect of sales which were effected after March 31, 1961, was taken away and not in respect of the sales which had been effected before March 31, 1961. It was further alleged that there was error on the face of record and was sufficient to review the judgment dated 28-5-1998.

(3.) The said petition for review came up for hearing before Hon'ble Sat Pal, J., on 9-7-1998 and notice of motion was issued to the respondents with a direction that final order shall not be passed by the trial Court. In the meanwhile, Hon'ble Sat Pal, J., retired and the present review petition came up for hearing before us.