Judgment:
MCC No.853/2006 6/8/2013: Shri A.L.Chourasiya, learned counsel for the applicant.
None appears for the respondents.
This application has been filed and is in the form of a review with regard to a judgment and decree passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No.142/2003.
Applicants herein Ramesh Prasad Chourasiya and Suresh Prasad Chourasiya were plaintiffs and had filed the suit in question before the FiRs.Civil Judge, Class II, Panna.
Suit in question was filed by the present applicants before the Trial Court with regard to certain land, description of which is given in para 3 of the judgment dated 29.3.2006 passed by the second Appellate Court.
It is seen that the applicants herein namely, Ramesh Prasad and Suresh Prasad were minot when with regard to the suit land a registered sale deed was executed for its sale by one Gulab Bai and Shiv Narain.
On the ground that the sale deed has been executed in fraudulent manner and defendant intend to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property, the suit in question was filed for declaration of the sale deed as null and void and for restoration of possession.
It seems that the suit was decreed and thereafter the matter went in appeal before the FiRs.Appellate Court and finally came to this Court when the second appeal was filed at the instance of respondent defendants.
The second appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on 17.2.2004 and substantial questions of law were also framed.
However, after admission of the suit a cross objection was also filed under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC and the cross objection was taken note of on 2.12.2004.
However, no substantial question of law with regard to the cross objection was framed and the matter remained so.
Thereafter when the case was heard finally, the questions framed were considered and decided and not the applicants have come out with a case that cross objection has not been considered and decided and therefore, they want review of the entire judgment.
It is seen from the records that when the appeal was heard and when the hearing was limited to the questions framed at the time of admission, the counsel for the appellants did not raise any objection not did he make any assertion for framing additional questions of law based on the cross objection not is there anything available on record to show that at the time of final hearing of the matter which took place on 21.3.2006 any arguments were advanced on behalf of the applicants with regard to the cross objection.
It is only after the second appeal has been decided that not this application has been filed to say that cross objection with regard to means profit has not been decided.
Once the appeal was admitted for hearing, substantial questions of law was framed and when detailed hearing took place after more than two years after filing of the cross objection and when no question of substantial question with regard to cross objection were raised, we see no reason to entertain this application and review the order and hear the second appeal again with regard to the cross objection when the appeal was being heard, the appellant through his counsel should have pressed for decision on cross objection.
There is nothing to say that the arguments on the cross examination were advanced or any question of law framed.
Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to re-open the matter for consideration of the prayer made with regard to decision on the cross objection.
The application is found to be unsustainable and therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt.
Vimla Jain) Judge Judge mrs.mishra