1. Restoration of second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; subsequent restoration applications dismissed for delay, with review sought. (Para 2 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 634
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Smt. Bhuri Devi, Since Deceased W/o. Late Smt. Radhey Shyam, Through Legal Heir Narendra Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur Through OIC, UIT Bharatpur – Respondent
S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 29 of 2025
Decided On : 16-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Mr. Arihant Samdaria
For the Respondent: Mr. L.L. Gupta, Mr. Tanmay Mathur.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Mr. Arihant Samdaria
For the Respondent: Mr. L.L. Gupta, Mr. Tanmay Mathur.
Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to errors apparent on the record, discovery of new facts, or other sufficient reasons; it is not a substitute for an appeal or a mechanism to reopen matters on merits.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Review of order dismissing restoration application - Review is maintainable only when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of record, discovery of new and important facts, or for any other sufficient reason - A review is not an appeal in disguise nor a reopening of the matter on merits. (Paras 13, 14)
(B) Limitation Act - Condonation of delay - Principle that a party should not suffer for the mistake or inaction of counsel is not applicable in cases of continuous fault and non-action, such as subsequent dismissals of restoration applications for non-compliance and failure to cure defects. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and a subsequent restoration application was also dismissed for non-compliance. A further application to restore the previous restoration application was dismissed due to a delay of 2378 days, with the court refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The legal heir of the deceased original plaintiff filed a review petition against this dismissal, citing their own physical disability and the previous illness of the deceased.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the grounds concerning the physical disability of the legal representative and the medical history of the deceased plaintiff had already been considered during the decision on the application for condonation of delay. No new facts were discovered, and no error apparent on the face of the record was found.
Issues: Whether the grounds of physical disability and previous illness of the party constitute a sufficient reason or an error apparent to justify the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reopen a matter on merits or serve as an appeal. The principle that a party should not suffer for counsel's mistake does not apply when there is a pattern of continuous default. Since the facts were already adjudicated in the order being reviewed, the petition failed to meet the narrow criteria for review.
Result: Review application dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued counsel default, blindness, illness, and need for substantial justice; respondent argued limited review scope. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
3. Delay of 2378 days unexplained; continuous fault; earlier grounds already considered; no new facts or error apparent. (Para 9 , 15 )
4. Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC requires mistake or error apparent on face of record, new facts, or sufficient reason; not an appeal in disguise. (Para 13 , 14 )
5. Review application dismissed; no order as to costs. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. What grounds are required for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 CPC?
Review is maintainable for mistake or error apparent on face of record, discovery of new facts, or any other sufficient reason; not an appeal in disguise. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. Does dismissal of appeal for counsel's default constitute a valid ground for review?
The principle that a party should not suffer for counsel's default is not applicable where there is continuous fault and non-action, as in this case. (Para 11 )
8. Can disability and illness of parties justify condonation of long delay in restoration proceedings?
Grounds of illness and blindness were already considered and rejected by the court; no new facts warranting review were discovered. (Para 15 )
9. Is a review petition an opportunity to re-argue the merits of the case?
No, review is not an appeal in disguise; it cannot reopen the matter on merits. (Para 13 )
Order :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. The instant review application is preferred by Narendra Sharma seeking review of the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 202/2018, whereby the restoration application preferred for restoration of S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Restoration Application No. 1324/2011 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/2008 was dismissed, s same having been held to be barred by law of limitation and filed after a delay of 2378 days, and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay having been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds and documents submitted along with the present application, has submitted that against the judgment dated 15.12.2007 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 171/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/2008 was filed by plaintiff Bhuri Devi and when the said appeal was listed for admission on 28.01.2009, and was dismissed for non- prosecution. He further submitted that petitioner Bhuri Devi filed Restoration Application No. 1324/2011, which was dismissed on 02.08.2011 in wake of pre-emptory order dated 23.04.2011.
3. He further submitted that a restoration application has been filed to restore the restoration application by the legal heir of Bhuri Devi (since deceased) on the ground that Bhuri Devi expired on 07.04.2015 and Narendra Kumar is 100% blind. He further submitted that the restoration application was dismissed by this Court on 07.03.2025 as there was no supporting document to show and justify the reasons of delay.
4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Rafiq vs. Munshilal , AIR 1981 SC 1400; The Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority vs. S.S. Sarvesh , (2019) 5 SCC 144; and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. , 2024 INSC 292, and submitted that if any appeal is dismissed for default of appellant’s counsel, then the principle is that a party should not suffer on account of the mistake, default or inaction of his counsel. He further submitted that to do substantial justice between the parties, it is necessary to consider the case of the present petitioner and hear the matter on merits.
5. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is 100% blind and son of illiterate plaintiff Smt. Bhuri Devi. He further referred to the physical disabilities and submitted that to provide access to justice, it is necessary to reconsider the case and the order be reviewed in light of the fact that Bhuri Devi was suffering from cancer and she remained under treatment for the last few years of her life and later expired whereas only legal representation is blind.
6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. He submitted that a review petition cannot be preferred to review the order passed on merits. He further referred to the judgment in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1304, and submitted that the scope of review is very limited. He further referred to the judgment in the case of Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna & Another, Civil Appeal No. _/2025 (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 876).
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. The facts of the case are that Bhuri Devi, plaintiff, filed a Civil Suit No. 41/1995 and the same was decreed in favour of plaintiff Bhuri Devi on 27.11.2003 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Bharatpur. Aggrieved thereof, UIT filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC and the same was registered and decided as Civil Regular Appeal No. 171/2003 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur. The appellate court allowed the appeal of UIT and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003.
9. The plaintiff Bhuri Devi filed S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.
