MOHAMMAD RAMZAN WANI Vs. AIJAZ AHMAD BHAT
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Mohammad Ramzan Wani
Aijaz Ahmad Bhat
Click here to view full judgement.
Ali Mohammad Magrey,J. -
(1.)On the set of facts and the grounds urged, coupled with the submissions made at Bar, the condonation of delay application is allowed and delay caused in filing the review petition is condoned. CM is accordingly disposed of.
CM No. 2956/2020;
The instant application has been filed by the applicant, seeking extension of time for submitting the requisite court fee, stamps etc. with the review petition.
On the set of facts and the grounds urged, coupled with submission made, the instant application is allowed and the applicant is permitted to make good the deficiency as and when Registry starts working in the regular form. CM is accordingly disposed of.
Rev Pet. No. 19/2020 taken on Board;
(2.)By medium of this review petition, the review petitioner/Respondent No. 6 in RFA No. 12/2020, seeks review of judgment of this Court dated 13th of May, 2020, passed by this Court RFA No. 12/2020; CM No. 1535/2020, whereby the appeal of the Respondent No. 1 herein stands allowed and impugned judgment therein set-aside, with further direction to the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.
(3.)Mr B.A. Bashir, learned senior counsel representing the review petitioner submits that the aforesaid judgment is required to be reviewed in view of the fact that the Court while deciding the appeal, did not consider the following points;
a. The Court has taken the suit property as co-sharer property which is not pleaded anywhere in the plaint;
b. The Court has taken the suit property as undivided/un-partitioned property which is not pleaded in the plaint;
c. If the property would have been un-partitioned, suit for preemption would not lye because the original owner cannot then claim as absolute title holder to transfer his suit property in the name of the plaintiff;
d. The suit property having been sold in the year 1969, present suit in any form is not maintainable on the face of it because assuming (though strongly refuting the same) there was violation of section 15 of Prior Purchase Act, same happened when first sale took place in the year 1969 and could have been challenged only within one year which has not been done either then or thereafter, on the other hand is accepted as a bonafide sale deed which has been subsequently been transferred bonafidely to proforma respondents who are again presumed to be bonafide title holders of the suit property without any objection that is why prayer in the plaint has been made that the proforma respondents should sell the suit property to the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 herein; and e. In absence of specific and unambiguous clear pleadings as to how the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 herein has dominant property and the petitioner's property is servient, suit on mere two words will not lie as no cause of action is emerging out of the pleadings, therefore, the suit was rightly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, hence, the judgment under review deserves to be set-aside and the order of the trial court be upheld.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.