Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Subhash Chand Mehendra (since deceased) through his LRs – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking review of the judgment dated 4.11.2023, passed by this Court in RSA No. 323 of 2022, titled Subhash Chander Mahendra (deceased through LRs) Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. It has been asserted that this Court concluded that petitioners/ appellants were seeking a decree of declaration based on therevenue record, which cannot be granted. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs. Keshav Ram 1996 (2) SCC 1957. This Court ignored the pleadings of the parties. The petitioners gave the details of the suit land and asserted that they had purchased the land in 1973- 74. This fact was not specifically denied in the written statement, and the contents of para No. 1 were partly admitted. The admitted facts need not be proved as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, and there is an error in the findings recorded by this Court. There was no dispute of title between the parties as the State of H.P. never set up the title regarding the suit land. The declaration could have been granted by the Court because of undisputed and unrebutted revenue entries. The evidenc
A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used as a means to reargue the case.
(1) Review petition cannot be entertained at behest of a Counsel or a person, who had not appeared before Court or was not party in main case.(2) Judgment cannot be reviewed in absence of error appar....
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.
A review petition can be allowed if an application for additional evidence was overlooked, constituting an error apparent on the record.
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
A review application filed by a subsequent counsel who had not argued the original case is not maintainable.
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....
A review petition is maintainable where there is fraud, suppression of material facts and developments involving the same land and that too when the property already became a property of the State.
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
