A person not party to proceedings may seek review if demonstrating direct or indirect legal grievance, especially regarding public interest matters.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

Heard on IA No. 1736 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing this review petition.

2. Reply of this application has been filed by respondent.

Preliminary Objection

3. However, it is submitted by Sri P.C. Chandil, counsel for the respondent, that before considering this application, his objection with regard to locus standi of applicant may also be considered. It is submitted that applicant, who is a practicing advocate, was not a party to the litigation at any stage. Therefore, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by applicant that since Government land worth Rs.500 crores is involved in the present case and, according to him, the judgment in question has been obtained by playing fraud and valuable forest land has been declared as private land, therefore, being a vigilant citizen of the country, he has right to file review petition. It is submitted that, the words “person aggrieved” in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, does not mean only party to proceeding, and would include any person who can show that he is directly or indirectly affected by judgment, or such person can demonstrate his legitimate interest, and that the judgment has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In support of his contentions, applicant has relied upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the following cases:

(i) Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad reported in (2019) 18 SCC 586 wherein it has been held as under:-

"18. Reverting to the question of whether the Union of India has locus to file the review petition, we must immediately advert to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which, inter alia, postulates that “any person considering himself aggrieved” would have locus to file a review petition. Order 47 CPC restates the position that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court exercises review jurisdiction by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution which predicates that the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Besides, the Supreme Court has framed Rules to govern review petitions. Notably, neither Order 47 CPC nor Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect."

(ii) Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan reported in (2013) 11 SCC 296 wherein it is held as under:-

28. In view of the above, the legal issues involved herein, can be summarised as under:

28.1. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC cannot be filed by a person who was not initially a party to the proceedings;

28.2. Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC can be exercised by the Court to redress only such a grievance, for which no remedy is provided for under CPC;

28.3. In the event that an order has been obtained from the court by playing fraud upon it, it is always open to the court to recall the said order on the application of the person aggrieved, and such power can also be exercised by the appellate court;

28.4. Where the fraud has been committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate such a factual issue, and in such an eventuality, a party has the right to get the said judgment or order set aside, by filing an independent suit.

28.5. A person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 or 3