SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(All) 292

Allahbad High Court
R.B.MISRA,K.N.SETH,S.D.AGARWAL
Sakal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Devi - Respondent
Decided On : 05/11/1979

Advocates:
R. Chaudhari, for Applicants.

The admission of a review application does not disturb the finality of the judgment in a suit or appeal and does not reopen or revive that suit or appeal.

Headnote:

REVIEW APPLICATION - ABATEMENT OF SUIT - CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT, 1953 - SECTION 5(2) - ADMISSION OF REVIEW APPLICATION - EFFECT ON PENDENCY OF SUIT - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

A review application was filed against a second appeal order, and during its pendency, the village where the disputed plots were located was brought under consolidation operation. The applicants moved an application for abating the suit and the appeal under Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the mere admission of a review application does not disturb the finality of the judgment in a suit or appeal and does not reopen or revive that suit or appeal.

Issues: Whether the admission of a review application disturbs the finality of the judgment in a suit or appeal and reopens or revives that suit or appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A review is not the same as or a substitute for an appeal. 2. The proceedings for review and appeal differ in many particulars. 3. The primary intention of a review is the reconsideration of the subject of the suit by the same Judge under certain conditions while an appeal is a re-hearing by another Court or Tribunal. 4. A point which may be a good ground for an appeal may not be a good ground for an application for review. 5. A review does not of necessity reopen questions already decided between the parties. 6. The matter in issue is reopened when the application for review is allowed while in the case of an appeal, the matter is reopened as soon as the appeal is admitted. 7. Order 47, C.P.C. contemplates three stages in a review petition. 8. The omission of the word "review" in Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Act is not accidental, but it is a designed one.

Final Decision: The court answered the referred question in the negative, holding that the admission of a review application does not disturb the finality of the judgment in a suit or appeal and does not reopen or revive that suit or appeal.

Judgement

R. B. MISRA, J. :- The present review application is directed against the order of D. D. Seth, J. (as he then was) dated 27th August, 1976.

2. It appears that Sakal Singh and five others filed a suit for declaration that they were either the bhumidhars or sirdars of the disputed plots against the applicants, Smt. Devi and Smt. Dharma, the suit was contested by the applicants on the ground that they were the bhumidhars in possession. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a second appeal before this Court, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 4th August, 1967. Smt, Devi and Smt. Dharma, the applicants, later on, filed the present review application on 23rd August, 1967. The review application came up for admission before the same learned Judge on 24th October, 1967, who directed for the issue of notice. During the pendency of the review application, the village where the plots in dispute are situate was brought under consolidation operation in pursuance of a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the applicants moved an application on 5th August 1976, for abating the suit and the appeal under Section 5(2) of the Act. As the learned Judge, who decided the second appeal, ceased to be a member of the Court, the application for review came up for final disposal before a Bunch of two Judges, as required under the Rules.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants pressed the application for abatement of the suit and the appeal under Section 5(2) of the Act and in support of his contention, placed reliance on Smt. Raj Dei v. Ram Pal 1974 All LJ 518. In that case, it was held that once a review application has been admitted and a rule has been issued, the Court is seized of the matter in dispute and the proceedings in the second appeal are revived. On the strength of this authority, it was contended that the suit is pending in the form of a second appeal and the same may be abated in view of Section 5(2) of the Act. The Bench hearing the review application, however doubted the correctness of the proposition laid down in Smt. Raj Dei v. Ram Pal (supra). The Bench, therefore, refer red the following question for answer by a larger Bench :-

"Does a mere admission of a review application and issue of a rule therein disturb the finality of the judgement in a suit or appeal and reopen and revive that suit or appeal ?"

This is how the matter has come up before this Bench.

4. In order to appreciate the question referred, it will be relevant, of this stage, to refer to Section 5 of the Act so far as it is material for the case. It reads :

"5. Effect of notification under Section 4(2) - (1) Upon the publication of the notification under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 in the Official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under Section 52 or Sub-Section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the notification under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 relates, namely-

(a) to (c) ............

(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely,-

(a) Every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on the order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated :

...............

................

(b) Such ab



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top