REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 374 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3990 of 2011 KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. … Appellant (s) VERSUS SUKHI RAM & ORS. … Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The case in hand is an example of a party suffering on account of total casualness in dealing with the matter. An avoidable litigation. 2. The challenge is to the order1 passed by the High Court2 in Review Application3. By the said order the Review Application filed by the respondents was allowed. As a result, the earlier order4 passed by the High Court in revision5 was recalled. By the said order, the revision 1 Dated 26.10.2009 2 High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh 3 R.A. No.2-C-II of 2009 4 Dated 04.12.2008 5 Civil Revision No.1645 of 1992 Page 1 of 17filed by the present appellants was allowed, permitting them to make good the deficit of ₹14/-. 3. The facts as available on record are that part of land comprising of 1/4th share land in