Review petitions under the CPC are not maintainable when an appeal against the same decree is pending; the proper remedy is an appeal, reinforcing the prohibition of parallel proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

This revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Review Petition No.1 of 2024 (Annexure-5) by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri.

2. The petitioner and Opp. Party in this revision were the petitioner and Opp. Party in the Review Petition No.1 of 2024 (arising out of C.S. No.471 of 2022) before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri.

3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner and the Opp. Party in this Revision were the plaintiff and defendant respectively in C.S. No.471 of 2022 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri. That suit vide C.S. No.471 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner being the plaintiff praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties and for a declaration of the sale deed as invalid, for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties against the defendant (Opp. Party).
The Judgment and Decree of that suit vide C.S. No.471 of 2022 was passed on dated 09.01.2024 on contest against the defendant (Opp. Party in this Revision) by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Puri, wherein, the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties was declared, the sale deed bearing No.11482105939 dated 18.10.2021 executed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff was declared as invalid and inoperative clarifying that, as the defendant is in possession over the suit properties, then, the question of passing any permanent injunction against the defendant does not arise.
After that Judgment and Decree passed on dated 09.01.2024 in C.S. No.471 of 2022, the plaintiff being the petitioner filed a Review Petition vide Review Petition No.1 of 2024 on dated 30.01.2024 under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 against the defendant arraying her as Opp. Party praying for the review of the ordering portion of the Judgment & Decree passed in C.S. No.471 of 2022 on dated 09.01.2024 for addition of decree for recovery of possession giving a direction to the defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to the petitioner/plaintiff by the Opp. Party/defendant with the reliefs already granted as stated above stating that, though, he (plaintiff) had prayed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in his plaint in the suit vide C.S. No.471 of 2022 and he (plaintiff) had not prayed for recovery of possession, but as per law, the Court should have granted the decree for recovery of possession with the reliefs already granted as stated above invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 7 of the CPC, 1908 and non-providing of the decree of recovery of possession with a direction to the defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to him (plaintiff) within the stipulated period as per law is an error of law apparent on the face of record, which is required to be reviewed and corrected and if the same is not corrected, the plaintiff (petitioner in this CRP) shall be highly prejudiced, which shall encourage multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, he (petitioner/plaintiff) prayed for addition of the decree for recovery of possession with the relief(s) granted in the ordering portion of the Judgment and Decree passed in C.S. No.471 of 2022 in his favour.

4. The Opp. Party (defendant) objected the same stating that, she (defendant/Opp. Party) has already preferred an appeal vide R.F.A. No.11 of 2024 challenging the aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2024 passed in