Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA
MANISH SHARADKUMAR MASTER – Appellant
Versus
HEIRS OF CHHOTALAL MOTILAL MASTER – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This application is filed for review of the order dated 06.11.2023 passed in First Appeal Nos. 1399 to 1401 of 1995.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Japan Trivedi for the applicants has filed a note to delete opponent No. 1.1 (1) to 1.1 (10) as they are formal parties.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi also seeks permission to delete opponent No. 2 who was original appellant and expired during the pendency of the appeal.
4. Permission is granted.
5. Issue Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah waives service of notice of rule for respondent no. 2.1.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submitted that opponent No. 2.1 has misinterpreted direction of this Court and did not pay balance amount to the applicant. It was submitted that the mistake is committed by this Court in considering the agreement to sale dated 24.07.1981. As per the said agreement to sale, there was no mention of the open plot adjacent to Block No. 1 Saubhagyapark Society Ltd and hence, the same could not have been confirmed. It was further submitted that the sale deed dated 02.11.1982 which is confirmed by this Court is having different facts comparing with the agreement to sale.
7. It was therefore submitted that there is a m
The court established that review applications must demonstrate clear errors on the record, not mere legal interpretations or disagreements with prior judgments.
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
Point of law: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeki....
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
The appellate court's failure to address pertinent arguments submitted by the reviewing party constituted an error of law warranting the review of the judgment.
A transferee pendente lite cannot maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, and the executing court must prioritize res judicata objections before proceeding.
Amendments altering the fundamental nature of a case are impermissible; evidence must align with pleadings for consideration in civil litigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
