Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Ishwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Lal Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of suit, appeals, and review filing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties argue revenue record errors in land shares. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. courts properly relied on unchallenged revenue records. (Para 9) |
| 4. review limited to apparent errors, not re-appreciation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. review petition dismissed; prior judgment upheld. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of present Review Petition filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the review petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant/defendant) to review and recall the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016 passed by this Court in RSA No.99 of 2009, titled as Ishwar Singh vs. Lal Singh and another, whereby this Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.5, Shimla HP, averring therein that plaintiff and defendant are co-sharers of land c
Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC limited to patent errors apparent on face of record, self-evident without reasoning; not for re-appreciating revenue records or facts without prior correction or chal....
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.
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.
Execution of decree – Review of judgment – Validity of - Judgment of Court is based has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground f....
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....
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.
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
