HARI KISHAN Vs. HOSHIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (w) read with Order 47, Rule 7 (I) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Una on 14th November, 1988 granting review of his earlier judgment dated 16th August, 1988 in Civil Appeal No 231 of 1985, and directing that the arguments in the appeal shall be heard afresh. The defendants, who were respondents before the learned District Judge in the appeal aforesaid, have filed this appeal as they are aggrieved by the grant of review of the earlier judgment of the learned District Judge,

(2.) The respondents in this appeal are the plaintiffs. They filed a suit seeking, inter alia, relief of demolition of some constructions raised by the defendants on a piece of land of which they were co -owners with the plaintiffs. The widow of one of the co -owners late Gurmit Singh, transferred part of the land in favour of Hoshiar Singh and Smt. Sheela Devi, two of the defendants The constructions had been raised by some co -owners on a part of the joint land, according to the findings recorded by the trial Court which dismissed the suit, without objection from the other co -owners. By his earlier judgment dated 16th August, 1988, the learned District Judge upheld that finding. In addition, what the learned Judge did was to hold that the constructions had been raised by some of the defendants on that part of the joint land which had fallen to their share in a private partition. The learned Judge felt that the fact of private partition stood established, inter alia, on account of an entry in the revenue record (Jamabandi for the year 1977 -78 (Ext. A) that the co -owners who had raised the constructions on a part of the joint land were recorded in Hissadari possession thereof.

(3.) In the petition for review, supported by an affidavit of plaintiff Hoshiar Singh, it was stated in paragraph number two, inter alia, that the judgment of the learned District Judge deserved to be reviewed as it had been passed on erroneous assumption that there was private partition between the parties of the suit land since the defendants had pleaded that they were in Hissadari possession of the suit land alongwith the plaintiffs.