Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR & ORS – Appellants
Versus
SH. TEJA SINGH & ORS – Respondents
RSA No. 144 of 2013
Decided On : 23-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kohli
For the Respondents: Mr. Santosh Krishnan
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a case is decided with a detailed judgment, it is not permissible for a party to file a review petition to argue a point that was not urged during the original case.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Limitation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The review petition sought to challenge the judgment allowing the second appeal based on the issue of limitation. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit to challenge a Relinquishment Deed, which was initially decided in their favor but later reversed by the first appellate court. The review petitioners argued that the suit was time-barred and should be dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no interest of justice required setting aside the impugned judgment. The court emphasized that once a case is decided with detailed judgment, it is not permissible for a party to file a review petition to argue a point that was not urged during the original case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the limitation period to the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and whether the substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting the second appeal included the issue of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an error apparent on the face of the record means an issue that has been considered and decided, and not an issue that was not urged. It also highlighted that the interest of justice does not warrant setting aside a judgment based on new arguments after the case has been disposed of.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the arguments presented by the review petitioners regarding the issue of limitation.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
C.M. No. 46870/2016 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
Review Petition No. 552/2016 in RSA No. 144/2013 along with C.M. Appl. No. 46868/2016 (for stay) and C.M. Appl. No. 46869/2016 (for condonation of delay of 78 days in filing the review petition).
2. This review petition seeks review of the judgment delivered by this Court on 1.9.2016 allowing the second appeal.
3. Two aspects are urged on behalf of the review petitioners/respondents/defendants before this Court:-
(i) The suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs to challenge the Relinquishment Deed dated 29.6.1973 executed by the husband of appellant no. 1 (father of the other appellants) was barred by limitation, and though the trial court by its judgment dated 16.7.2003 had decided the issue of limitation in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs, however, the first appellate court by its judgment dated 26.2.2013 decided the issue of limitation in favour of the review petitioners/defendants and against the appellants/plaintiffs holding the suit to be time barred, and therefore this Regular Second Appeal was bound to be dismissed in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even though the issue of limitation was not urged before this Court on behalf of the review petitioners/defendants.
(ii) When the second appeal was admitted on 2.12.2013 the substantial question of law which was framed, and which has been reproduced in paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment of this Court dated 1.9.2016, there is no issue of limitation included and thus the suit of appellants/plaintiffs had to be dismissed as time-barred.
4. A review petition is filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Review petition lies if there is an error apparent on the face of record or certain new documents have come to the notice of the parties or if in the interest of justice on a very fundamental issue for ensuring justice a review petition is filed. Once a Court decides a case by a detailed judgment referring to and deciding all the points urged, it is not permissible for one of the parties to file a review petition to say that although a particular point was not urged the same be now allowed to be urged by the review petitioner and the disposed of case be re-decided on merits. Effectively, what is argued is that there is a right to file a review petition for arguing a point, although the point in question was not argued, i.e. on such non argued point the judgment is sought to be reviewed for being set aside.
5. An error apparent on the face of record necessarily means that an issue which has been considered and decided and which is ex facie illegally decided. If a point is not urged there does not arise an issue of there arising an error apparent on the face of record.
6. So far as the interest of justice requiring review is concerned, I do not think that once a case is argued for several days and hours before the Court resulting in a detailed judgment passed in open Court for around one and a half hours dealing with all the aspects argued (as stated in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 1.9.2016), then there at all can arise an issue of interest of justice because pleadings of parties always contain several points but it is the privilege of the parties whether or not to press a point found in the pleadings. The issue of limitation once is not pressed on behalf of the review petitioners/defendants in this Court, and the only points urged which are referred to in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 1.9.2016 have been decided by the judgment, there cannot arise an issue of interest of justice because if this argument is accepted it would mean that counsels and parties will keep on filing review applications to urge that various points which have not been argued, and therefore actually given up. After the judgment is passed disposing of the case the Court becomes functus officio, an
