BODH RAJ Vs. RANO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this application, condonation of delay of 382 days in filing review against the judgment dated 12-10-2000 passed in CSA No. 19/1994, is sought in the backdrop of following facts and circumstances : Applicant Smt. Rano Devi claims to be an illiterate poor lady belonging to backward area of village Makwal Tehsil Billawar. A suit for possession filed by Bodh Raj in respect to land measuring 57 kanals 13 marlas was decreed by Munsiff, Billawar on 28-8-1973, Execution Petition for execution of the aforesaid decree was contested on the ground of inexecutability of the decree. Plea of inexecutability prevailed with executing Court resulting in dismissal of the petition on the ground of decree being against the provision of the J. & K. Agrarian Reforms Act vide order dated 1-11-1975 of executing Court. Appeal preferred by the decree holder succeeded before the District Judge, Kathua who remanded the case after setting aside the order of the executing Court and directed execution of the decree by his order dated 27-5-1989. The decree was against Beli Ram predecessor in interest of the applicant who died during pendency of the appeal before the District Judge. Present petitioner who succeeded Beli Ram's estates and in interest preferred a Civil Revision No. 184/90 before High Court, which came to be disposed of by a consent order dated 26-9-1991, which reads as under :

(2.) Vide aforesaid order of the High Court, applicant was required to approach the executing Court and her claim as legal heir of the deceased Beli Ram was to be considered by the said Court. On an application made by the applicant executing Court declared her as legal heir of deceased Beli Ram vide order dated (sic). Pursuant to this declaration, she preferred objections to the maintainability of the execution petition. The Executing Court (Munsiff, Billawar) came to conclusion that there are two conflicting directions one by the District Judge and other by the High Court and accordingly sought opinion from the High Court by making reference. Reference No. 2 of 1993 made by Munsiff (executing Court), came to be disposed of vide order dated 5-11-1993. The High Court while passing order on reference has opined that applicant having been declared as legal heir of deceased, is under law entitled to file objections with regard to the maintainability of execution proceedings and directed the executing Court to decide the objections according to law. The executing Court considered the objections of the applicant regarding maintainability of the execution proceedings consequent upon remand by the High Court and vide order dated 24-3-1994 declared the decree as nullity and inexecutable being in contravention of the provision of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. An appeal preferred against this order, also came to be rejected by the District Judge, Kathua vide order dated 30-8-1994 holding appeal not maintainable. This order of District Judge, Kathua became subject-matter of further appeal before the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable. However, the same was treated as revision and finally decided civil revision registered as CSA No. 19/1994 vide its order dated 12-10-2000. It is this order, which is sought to be reviewed for which application for condonation has been filed. The main ground seeking condonation of delay is mentioned in paras 9 and 10 of the application, which are reproduced as under :

(3.) Mr. J. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for non-applicants has filed detailed objections to the condonation application opposing condonation application on the ground that applicant was duly represented before the High Court in CSA No. 19/94. Therefore, she is presumed to have knowledge of the judgment delivered by the Court. It is further stated that litigant cannot sleep over her claim and she has to follow the case. The counsel is under no obligation to inform the litigant about pronouncement of the judgment. It is further stated that the applicant has intentionally omitted to mention the date when she appeared before the learned Munsiff or was served with summons from the Court of learned Munsiff, Billawar. Applicant having not questioned the judgment passed in CSA No. 19/94, cannot be permitted to seek review thereof, as it does not suffer with any error of law or procedure muchless an error apparent on the face of record. Plea of the applicant that she is a poor lady and did not possess means to come to Jammu, is also denied being false, frivolous and baseless. Applicant is stated to be a person of means supported by her husband and sons who were suitably employed and are residing in Jammu.