Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Bhori Lal Alias Bhanwar Lal, S/o. Shri Ganga Ram – Appellant
Versus
Suwa Devi, D/o. Late Shri Jagdish – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petitions based on prior orders and decree. (Para 1 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. parties’ arguments on service of notice and wrongful decree. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis on review scope and service evidence. (Para 5 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. final ruling on the limited scope of review. (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of review petitions. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. These review petitions were filed by the applicant–petitioner aggrieved from the order dated 28.05.2025 in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 281/2019, titled as Bhori Lal vs. Suva Lal and Others , and SB Civil Revision Petition No. 282/2019, titled Bhori Lal vs. Gulab Devi and Others passed by this Court. Both the revision petitions No. 281/2019 and 282/2019 were filed aggrieved from a common order dated 27.09.2019 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 234/2014 and 25/2014 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metro Headquarters, Sanganer, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2013 in Civil Suit No. 32/2013 was set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds of the review petition, submitted tha
The limited scope of review under civil procedure permits correction of apparent errors only, not re-litigation based on arguments previously considered.
Proper service of summons is crucial, and failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure can lead to the conclusion of non-service, as highlighted by the Supreme Court decisions referenced in the judg....
Review proceedings under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are strictly limited to correcting apparent errors and do not allow for a re-evaluation of the merits of the case.
Timely filing and valid explanations for delays are crucial in applications to set aside ex parte judgments under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.
The court affirmed that proper procedures for ex-parte proceedings were followed, and the petitioner had knowledge of the case, validating the ex-parte order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review is not an inherent power and is subject to the limitations of Section 114 and Order-47, Rule-1 of CPC. A review can only b....
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....
The legal point established is that the process server's reports must be witnessed, and the court must record satisfaction of 'deemed' service. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity to....
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
