The court established that review applications must demonstrate clear errors on the record, not mere legal interpretations or disagreements with prior judgments.

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 mistake apparent on record in confirming agreement to sale as well as sale deed by this Court.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi also referred to the discussion in the judgment with regard to section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act and submitted that this Court has not considered the observation of the Trial Court which states on page 134 of the Judgment of the Trial Court that the doctrine of lis pendence could not be applicable as the amendment was applicable only to the property situated at in Greater Bombay City and the suit property is situated in Ahmedabad City. It was therefore submitted that this Court could not have held that as there was no lis pendence. The sale deed was rightly executed during the pendency of the Civil Suits No. 3831/1982 and 4081/1982 on 13.10.1982 and 30.10.1982.

9. It was therefore submitted that the judgment passed by this Court is required to be recalled.

10. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. Karuppuraj vs. M. Ganesan, (2021) 10 SCC 777 pointed out that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 are not followed by this Court.

11. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Jainil Shah for the opponent No. 2.1 submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record pointed by the applicant and scope of review being very limited, no interference is called for in the judgment and the application deserves to be dismissed. It was submitted that points raised on behalf of the applicant are on merits of the case without pointing out any mistake apparent on record in the judgment. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of Asharfi Devi (D) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 (5) SCC 86.

12. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the parties, the issue which are raised by this application with regard to contents of the agreement that sale which was never in dispute before have been Trial Court and the difference between the contents that agreement of sale and contents of sale deed were tried to be raised which was never the dispute before the Trial Court and therefore, it cannot be said to be a mistake on record. With regard to issue of applicability of section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act, it pertains to the interpretation of the provisions of law and cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on record.

13. It is a settled law with regard to the review of the Judgment. Review means reexamination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of the human fallibility as held by the Apex Court in case of S. Nagraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595 as under:

“19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy in