(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the review of the judgment and decree dtd. 21/9/2023 passed by this Court in RSA No. 45 of 2007. It has been asserted that the petitioner raised an objection regarding the tenancy, and this objection was not considered by the Court while deciding the appeal. The petitioner claimed that the original mortgagee, Sh. Surju, under whom he was a tenant during his lifetime, did not dispute the claim of Dhuri regarding the tenancy. This vital point was not considered and adjudicated upon. The plaintiff has no locus standi to dispute the status of the petitioner. The petitioner was found to be in physical possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had made material admissions which were not considered by the Court. The real point of controversy could not be adjudicated without impleading all the legal heirs of the mortgagee, late Sh. Dhuri. The entries in the revenue record were misread. The jamabandi contained long-standing entries regarding the status of Surju as a mortgagee. The plaintiff had not sought a declaration in the suit, and an injunction could not have been issued without a declaration. The grounds of appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Court were not dealt with and determined. The application for the production of additional evidence was wrongly rejected. The vestment of the ownership right upon Dhuri was automatic, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with it. The claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession was raised but was not considered. The judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court against a dead person and was a nullity. Wrong conclusions regarding the entry of tenancy of late Dhuri were drawn. The plaintiff did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, and the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Court were binding upon him. The Court had committed material irregularities and illegalities as a result of which the judgment and decree are to be reviewed; hence, the petition.
(2.) I have heard Mr G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Sumit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) and Mr Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2.
(3.) Mr G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there are various irregularities in the judgment highlighted in the memo of the petition; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by this Court be reviewed.