Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors. (In Sapl 375/2001)- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Misc Review Application Defective No.86 of 2021
Decided on : 15-07-2021
Civil Procedure code, 1908 - Section 114 CPC - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review-petition - Seeking condonation of delay - Cognizance for Extension of Limitation - Specific performance of contract - the sale deed was executed in favour predecessor-in-interest , there was no cause of action which survived to the plaintiffs to press the suit for specific performance of contract without assailing the sale deed in question which was in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the review-petitioner – To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree.
Finding of the court: No ground as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been made out for the purpose of reviewing - High Court made observations in with respect to possession of the plaintiffs on appreciation of evidence on record more particularly the deposition of the plaintiff (PW1) and his witness PW2 and on appreciation of evidence, the High Court found that the plaintiff is in actual possession of said house - When observation with respect to the possession of the plaintiff were made on appreciation of evidence/material on record, it cannot be said that there was an error apparent on the face of proceedings which were required to be reviewed in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - High Court while making observations with respect to plaintiff in possession also took note of the fact that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 respondents themselves filed an application which was filed under Section 151 CPC for getting the possession of the disputed house from the appellants and the said application was dismissed as withdrawn - High Court took note of the fact that even according to the defendant nos. 1 & 2 the appellants were in possession of the disputed house - High Court has clearly erred in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC more particularly in the light of the settled preposition of law laid down by this Court - The review-petitioner is trying to seek a re-hearing of the appeal which is not within the scope of the review. The learned counsel could not point out any error apparent on the face of the record and the submissions made do not fall within the parameters of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
Result: Review-Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the review-petitioner.
2. The instant review-petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2021 passed in Second Appeal No. 375 of 2001. The said review is also accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay.
3. Having considered the application and the ground mentioned therein seeking condonation of delay, this Court finds that in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suo Moto Writ Petition No. (Civil) 3 of 2020 In Ref: (Cognizance for Extension of Limitation) the period of said delay is to be excluded, hence, the review-petition shall be treated to be filed within time.
4. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the review-petitioner on admission of the aforesaid review-petition.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the instant second appeal was argued by Sri Nirmal Tiwari, Advocate. Since, thereafter he left for his heavenly abode and in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants had contacted the counsel who has preferred the instant review-petition.
6. Sri U.S. Sahai while pressing the application for review submits that in the instant case, in a suit for specific performance of contract which was dismissed by the Trial Court, but has been decreed by the Lower Appellate Court. The appellants of the Second Appeal No. 375 of 2001 are the legal heirs of the original defendant namely Sri Darshan who was (the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration) of the property having purchased the same from Sri Chedua, (the original owner).
7. It has been submitted that after the sale deed was executed in favour Sri Darshan (the predecessor-in-interest of the present review-petitioners), there was no cause of action which survived to the plaintiffs to press the suit for specific performance of contract without assailing the sale deed in question which was in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the review-petitioner. In absence of any subsisting cause of action, the proceedings itself were bad and this aspect of the matter has not been noted by the Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021.
8. It is further urged that the issue of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs has not been considered and no issue to the aforesaid effect was framed. The issue regarding the defendant (Darshan-the predecessors-in-interest of the review-petitioners) being the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice has also not been considered in the correct perspective so also the fact that the original owner of the property namely Chhedua has not denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of Sri Darshan (predecessor-in-interest of the present review-petitioner), hence, the plaintiff's suit could not have been decreed by the lower appellate court. The aforesaid aspect also escaped the attention of he Court, hence, putting the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 at a vulnerable status, capable of being reviewed.
9. The learned counsel for the review-petitioner has relied upon the following decisions in the case of Rakesh Vs. State of U.P. decided on 18.05.2018 in Jail Appeal No. 242 of 2013; C.S. Venkatesh Vs. A.S.C. Murthy (D) by L.Rs. and Others decided on 07.02.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2009; Kanailal and Others Vs. Ram Chandra Singh and Others decided on 23.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4165 of 2008; P. Meenakshisundaram Vs. P. Vijayakumar and Others decided on 28.03.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3353-3354 of 2018 as well as in the case of Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Jagroop Singh and others decided on 28.01.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 760 of 2020.
10. Before dealing with the aforesaid submissions, it will be worthwhile to notice a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sahu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 896 wherein the scope of the review has been considered in fair degree of depth also considering earlier decisions of t
Point of law: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeki....
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....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The power of judicial review is strictly confined to correcting errors apparent on the record, without substituting previous judicial conclusions on merits.
(1) Review jurisdiction – Application for review would also lie if order has been passed on account of some mistake—Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order—Rehearing of matter is imper....
Review jurisdiction does not allow for re-evaluation of facts or reweighing evidence but only addresses errors apparent on the record or newly discovered critical information.
Review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-argument or appeal; it is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or addressing new evidence that was not available at the time of....
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
