Back
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ON THE DEATH OF MUNINDRA SINGHA LAHKAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS RENUSHREE LAHKAR W/O LATE MUNINDRA SINGHA LAHKAR – Appellant
Versus
PRADIP KUMAR LAHKAR S/O KESHAV CH. LAHKAR – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. R. Baruah appearing for the review petitioners. Also heard the learned counsel Mr. M.K. Choudhury appearing for the respondents.
2. These two petitions are under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 47 of the said Code praying for reviewing the order passed by this Court on 29.08.2018 in RSA No. 172/2006.
3. The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that late Keshav Chandra Lahkar had a house named Kirti Bhawan, situated upon a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lechas. Late Keshav Chandra Lahkar had nine children, three sons and six daughters. The three sons are namely, Munindra Singha Lahkar (now deceased), Prodip Kumar Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar.
4. It is claimed that before his death, late Keshav Chandra Lahkar had distributed all his properties amongst his legal heirs. But Kirti Bhawan was not given to anyone. So, it remained a joint property even after the demise of late Keshav Chandra Lahkar.
5. Kirti Bhawan was actually jointly occupied by late Munindra Singha Lahkar an
Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. reads as: Application for review of judgment.
The main legal point established is that a review petition must be based on an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
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....
Review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal; they must adhere strictly to legal standards, allowing for correction of apparent errors only, not retrials of decisions.
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 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.
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
