The limited scope of review and the impermissibility of re-arguing a matter in a review application.

ORDER :

(Order on Review Application Non.1/1992 (9000170/2002)

1. Instant review application has been filed praying for review of judgment dated 5.9.2002 passed in Civil Revision No.29 of 1992 in re: Bhola Nath and another. Vs. Anas Raseed.

2. This Court, vide aforesaid judgment and order had held, after perusal of records, that the trial court had come to an incorrect conclusion regarding service of notice upon the defendant-revisionists as the /postman had not been examined and reliable evidence regarding service of notices under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act had not been produced in the case ignoring the fact that the notice had been sent on correct address of noticee.

3. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ghulam Waris Khan and another. Vs. Lt. Col. Ajeet Singh and another, reported in [2008 (26) 209], wherein this Court had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Madan & Company. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand, ARC 1989 (2) page 381 and held that if a registered letter addressed to a person at his residential address does not get served in normal course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's own conduct and thus, it is argued that the finding, as recorded by this Court in the judgment dated 5.9.2002 which pertains to the non-service of notice, is incorrect.

4. Placing reliance on the another judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Indra Mukhi Verma. Vs. The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge and others, reported in 1985 All. L.J.1188, learned counsel for petitioner states that this Court while exercising powers of revision, could not re-apprise the evidence as recorded by the Court below and substitute its own finding.

On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the Review Application has been filed.

5. Having heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan and perused the record, what emerges is that the judgment and order dated 5.9.2002 has given a clear finding that an incorrect conclusion had been arrived at by the Court below pertaining to the service of notice on the defendant-revisionists. While arriving at the conclusion, the Court has place reliance on the reliable evidence regarding service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act having not been produced and witnesses having not been examined. Thus, it is apparent that a clear finding has been recorded by this Court.

6. The review has been filed on two grounds as already indicated above.

7. The scope of review has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs V. Narayana Reddy in Civil Appeal No. 5503-04 of 2022 decided on 18.08.2022 wherein it has been held as under:-

“16. The error referred to under the Rule, must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. While discussing the scope and ambit of Article 137 that empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and in the course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Lily Thomas (supra), this Court held as under:

"54. Article 137 empowers this court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides:

"1. Application for review of judgment -(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowl