Civil revisions against orders rejecting review applications on merits are not maintainable; the appropriate recourse is to file an appeal against the original decree.

Order :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, in I.A.No.276 of 2015 in O.S.No.155 of 2013.

2. The brief facts of the matter are that the present petitioners, being plaintiffs, filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent/defendant. The suit was dismissed on contest. Against such order of dismissal, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an application for review under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII, R.1 r/w 151 of CPC on the ground that the decision passed by the learned Civil Judge concerned in the suit can be reviewed by virtue of the earlier litigation between the parties. The learned Court below, by passing the impugned order, has dismissed application for review. Hence, this Civil Revision Application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties was settled by virtue of earlier suit being O.S.No.646 of 2010, which was affirmed after appeal being A.S.No.157 of 2012. He further submits that the present petitioners being the plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery towards the earlier rent with interest due from the defendant for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. The earlier suit was filed in respect of the recovery for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. He further submits that the relation between the parties and remittance of rent between the parties were admitted and that the enhanced rent due to letting out of the tobacco bar to third parties was also admitted. Thus, the decree passed by the learned Court below requires to be reviewed. He submits that the learned Court below has erroneously dismissed application for review and prays that the matter be remanded to the learned Court below for proper decision.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 raised the point of maintainability of the instant review application by virtue of a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERS Vs. ASHIYAL BEEVI arising out of SLP (C) No.8428 of 2018. He submits that a revision application against dismissal of review application is not at all maintainable. He clarified that if, by the strength of civil revisional jurisdiction, a High Court passes an order regarding reviewing a decree, thereby modifying the earlier decree passed by the Court below, the party affected by such decree would have a right of appeal, but such right would be seriously prejudiced by the order of the Revisional Court. He placed on record paragraphs 24 to 28 of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

“24. What is clear from the above observations is, that where the review is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or modified, such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of the earlier decree or order, passes another decree or order or modifies the one made earlier. The decree so vacated, reversed or modified is then the decree that is effective for the purposes of a further appeal, if any, maintainable under law. But where the review petition is dismissed, there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or Court shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently pursuing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition.

25. Apart from above, there is another reason also for a revisional court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree, which is, if the revisional court sets aside or modifies or alters a trial court's decr