Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
ON THE DEATH OF MUNINDRA SINGHA LAHKAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS RENUSHREE LAHKAR W/O LATE MUNINDRA SINGHA LAHKAR – Petitioner
Versus
PRADIP KUMAR LAHKAR S/O KESHAV CH. LAHKAR – Respondent
Review Petition No. 188 of 2018
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 114, Order 47, Rule 1 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Praying For Reviewing Order - These two petitions are under Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 47 of said Code praying for reviewing order passed by this Court. Para 19.
Finding of the Court :
In Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, Hon’ble Apex Court has held Order 47 Rule 1 of Code provides for filing an application for review - Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on face of record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason - Thus, a mistake on part of court which would include a mistake in nature of undertaking may also call for a review of order - An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor - What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on facts and circumstances of case - Words “sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 of Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate - An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking doctrine “actus curiae neminem gravabit” - Reverting to case in hand, this Court is of opinion that by filing the review petitions, petitioners, have actually filed an appeal and this is not permissible under law - For review of a judgment, there must be an error apparent on face of record - A judgment may be erroneous in law, but even then, judgment cannot be reviewed under Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure - In case in hand, there is no error apparent on face of judgment - Therefore, review petitions are not maintainable in law.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
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 and Mohit Chandra Lahkar. Prodip Kumar Lahkar was not occupying that property because he was staying at Guwahati.
6. Sometime later, Kirti Bhawan was partitioned between Munindra Singha Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar. Pursuant to that partition, eastern part of the property went to Mohit Chandra Lahkar and the western part went to Munindra Singha Lahkar.
7. On 13.06.2003, Prodip Kumar Lahkar served a notice upon Munindra Singha Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar stating that Kirti Bhawan was already partitioned on 19.02.1994 by a registered instrument and therefore, the aforementioned partition of the property between Munindra Singha Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar, is illegal.
8. Late Munindra Singha Lahkar had alleged that the instrument dated 19.02.1994 is a forged document containing his forged signature. Munindra Singha Lahkar further alleged that Prodip Kumar Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar had entered into conspiracy to have him out of Kirti Bhawan.
9. Narrating the aforesaid facts, late Munindra Singha Lahkar filed the Title Suit being TS 14/2003 against Prodip Kumar Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar praying for cancellation of the deed dated 19.02.1994.
10. Prodip Kumar Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar contested the case by reiterating that since there was a partition in the year 1994, the partition in the year 2003 was unnecessary.
11. The trial court of Munsiff dismissed the suit of Munindra Singha Lahkar. The first appellate court also agreed with the said judgment. This Court, in second appeal, upheld the judgment passed by the first appellate court.
12. The present review petitioners have submitted that late Keshav Chandra Lahkar had nine children. Apart from the sons namely: Munindra Singha Lahkar, Prodip Kumar Lahkar and Mohit Chandra Lahkar, late Keshav Chandra Lahkar had six daughters. The six daughters have claimed that the dispute between the siblings was already settled in an out of court settlement and the review applications should be allowed only on that ground by setting aside the judgment of this Court dated 29.08.2018 passed in RSA No. 172/2006.
13. It is further pleaded that the counsel representing the review petitioners in the courts below had failed to bring on record the family settlement agreement dated 19.02.2018.
14. The third plea taken by the review petitioners is that the daughters of late Keshav Chandra Lahkar were not heard in this second appeal.
15. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also gone through the judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed by this Court in RSA No. 172/2006.
16. In paragraph 39 of the said judgment, it is held that though the daughters of late Keshav Chandra Lahkar had filed the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC praying for impleadin
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
