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 challenge.

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 comprising Khewat No. 46, Khatauni Nos. 356 and 357, Khasra Nos. 444, 570 and 573, Kita 3 measuring 00-00-98 hectares situate at Mauza Sangti, Tehsil and District Shimla, HP. Plaintiff averred that share of plaintiff in suit land is 11/33, which comes to 00.00.33 hectares and share of defendant No.1 is of 16/33, which comes to 00.00.53 hectares. While stating that plaintiff and defendant No.1 also own land adjoining to suit land, plaintiff also claimed that he is owner of land in Khasra No. 441 (old Khasra No. 217/125/3), whereas defendant is owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 442 (Old No. 217/124/2) and upon these lands, they both have constructed their houses. Plaintiff claimed that the suit land is joint between the parties, but yet defendant in order to use the best portion of suit land started changing its nature without the same being validly partitioned.

3. Aforesaid suit filed by the respondent/ plaintiff came to be resisted by the appellant/defendant, who in his written statement though admitted that land in dispute is recorded in joint ownership of defendant and plaintiff, but submitted that same is not jointly possessed by the parties to the suit and defendant is in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 573 measuring 00-00-24 hectares, out of suit land, whereas he is in exclusive possession of Khasra Nos. 444 and 570, kita 2 measuring 0-00-74 hectares. He further claimed that his share comes to 16/33 which is equivalent 0-00-65 hectares and not 0-00-53 hectares. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2007, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for grant of permanent propitiatory injunction restraining defendant from changing nature of land comprised in Khasra No. 573, but rejected the another prayer for relief of mandatory injunction restraining defendant from raising construction over another portion i.e. Khasra nos. 444 and 570.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC before Additional District judge, Shimla i.e. Civil Appeal No. 35-S/13 of 2007, which came to be allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2008. First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, restrained defendant No. 1 from making any further construction so as to cover any more land on Khasra Nos. 444 and 570, though he permitted defendant to raise upper storey on the part already covered by the defendant. In the aforesaid background, defendant approached this Court by way of Regular Second Appeal No.99 of 2009, which ultimately came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.11.2016.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, appellant/defendant approached Hon'ble Apex Court