Sher Singh vs Ishwar Singh and others

J.S. Sekhon, J.—Sher Singh Plaintiff has directed this revision against the order dated May 12, 1988 of Subordinate Judge I Ind Class. Kurkshetra appointing Jhanda Ram father of Ramesh Kumar Defendant the alleged minor as guardian on the consent of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and adjourning the case for filing the amended plaint

In brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Sher Singh and Mohinder Singh Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit of the suit land by way of pre-emption on the strength of their being co-sharers qua the original owner. All the Defendants also filed an application for amendment of the written statement, which was dismissed by the trial Court. The revision petition filed against that order, dismissing the application, was also dismissed by this Court on May 9, 1988. Thereafter, on May 12, 1988, learned Counsel for Respondent No 3 Ramesh Kumar made a request before the trial Court that Defendant No 3 is a minor and he should be allowed to be represented through his father Jhanda Ram as he had no adverse interest against the minor upon which the above referred impugned order was passed in the presence of Shri R. G Garg, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs as he had no objection to the same. The suit was then adjourned to May 13, 1988 for filing the amended plaint.

Mr. C B. Goel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the trial Court had wrongly recorded the consent of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs while passing the aforesaid impugned order. He also stated that a review application was filed before the trial Court for review of the said order as in the copy of school leaving certificate filed by Ramesh Kumar Defendant No. 3 wrongly depcited his date of birth as March 4, 1971 but the Plaintiff-Petitioner later on learnt that the date of birth of Ramesh Kumar Defendant No. 3 was recorded as August 8, 1966 in the record of the concerned chowkidar. He also attached a photostat copy of the birth entry obtained by him from the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Kurusketra. It was also contended that the conduct of Defendant Ramesh Kumar in not bringing this fact to the notice of the trial Court and contesting the suit and other proceedings depicting himself as major also supports the conclusion that he was born on August 8, 1966 and not on March 4, 1971. Thus, the learned Counsel tried to make out that the order under challenge was passed in exercise of illegal jurisdiction by the trial Court. Mr. V. K. Bali, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 3 while relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, , which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Manohar Lal and Anr. v. Surjan Singh and Anr. 1983 P L. J. 402, contended that the order of the trial Court was the conclusive evidence as to what transpired before it at the relevant time and thus this Court cannot go beyond the said order in concluding that Plaintiff had not given his consent to the appointment of guardian-ad-litem of Ramesh Kumar minor Defendant. It was also contended that as the review application being pending before the trial Court in this regard, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order on the revisional side. The learned Counsel also challenged the maintainability of the revision petition.

The law is well settled on the point that the orders recorded by the Court are the final word as to what transpired between the parties in the Court at a particular point of time and the subsequent assertion of a party that some facts were wrongly recorded in the impugned order are of no help especially when no such objection was got recorded before the trial Court at the time of passing the relevant order. In the present case also the Plaintiff or his counsel had not objected to passing of the above referred order by the trial Court on the ground that the consent of the Plaintiff had been wrongly recorded therein and actually he had not consented to treating Ramesh Kumar as minor or to the appointment of his guardian. The Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas and another''s case (supra) had dealt with the similar controversy after relying upon the observations of Lord Atkinson in Somasunderan v. Subramanian A. I. R. 1927 P. C. 136, which runs as under:-

We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges says in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent unon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error.

The above referred view of the Supreme Court of India was later followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Shri Manohar Lal and another''s case (supra). Under these circumstances, it would be setting up an unhealthy precedent and that too against the public policy, if every impugned order of the trial Court is doubted on the assertions of the parties that they have never consented to the passing of such consenting order. Thus, no case is made cut for interfering with the impugned order of the trial Court on the revisional side.

However, as it is alleged that a review application was filed by the Petitioner on May 16, 1988 for reviewing the impugned order before the trial Court Thus, it, appears to be a fit case where the trial Court can be directed to dispose of the review application promptly. Accordingly, it is directed that the review application aforesaid shall be disposed of within one month of this order, especially when the determination of minority of Ramesh Kumar Defendant No. 3 depends on the documentary, evidence. It is also directed that the trial court should decide the suit expeditiously.

For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties arc left to bear their own costs. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed, that is, on September 7, 1988.