The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to recall an order based on errors apparent on the face of the record, including the decision on a matter that had already been dismissed and the failure to determine the real issues involved in the revision petitions.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Preliminary

These three review petitions, relating to the common order dated 07.01.2016 as passed by this Court in three Civil Revision Petitions [CR (P) No. 56 of 2013, CR (P) No. 59 of 2013 and CR (P) No.20 of 2014], have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

2. Put in a nutshell, the submissions of the review petitioners [who were the respondents in CR (P) No. 56 of 2013 and CR (P) No.59 of 2013 and were the petitioners in CR (P) No. 20 of 2014] are that the common order dated 07.01.2016 suffers from such errors that are apparent on the face of the record, particularly when this Court has issued directions much beyond and away from the subject-matter of revision petitions, but without adverting to the real issues involved; and this Court has even decided CR (P) No.20 of 2014 also, although the said revision petition was not even pending and had already been dismissed as withdrawn way back on 10.07.2015.

3. Though, ordinarily, a review petition is expected to be placed before, and decided, by the same Hon'ble Judge who had passed the order sought to be reviewed but, it has been pointed out in these matters that the Hon'ble Judge, who passed the impugned order on 07.01.2016 (during winter vacations of this Court), demitted the office on retirement on 31.01.2016, i.e., even before thirty days from the date of the order and the review petitions were filed within limitation on 08.02.2016. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, these review petitions have been considered on merits by this Bench.

Nature of dispute: Efforts for Settlement leading to more disputes

4. The disputants herein, the review petitioners being on one side and the respondent on the opposite, are closely related to each other inasmuch as the review petitioner No.1 Shri Dushyant Varma is the son of review petitioner No.2 Smti. Kamla Varma (mother) and the respondent Shri Kailash Varma (father). The disputes pertaining to these petitions essentially relate to the business establishments of the family at Shillong. It is also apparent that the family has fallen apart; and the parties are entangled in a web of litigations, which includes, apart from the commercial litigation's forming the subject-matter of these review petitions, even the matrimonial dispute between the review petitioner No.2 and the respondent. So far the business establishments are concerned, the parties hereto are holding amongst themselves more than 93% of paid up capital of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Pegasus Hotels Private Limited, which had been managing a hotel business in the name of Hotel Pegasus Crown. There is another family business in the name of Delhi Mistan Bhandar.

5. It appears that when serious differences and disputes cropped up between the parties of the same family in relation to the said business establishments, there had been efforts for settlement and allegedly, the parties executed a so called Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 22.11.2012. As has unfolded in due course of time, this so called Family Settlement, instead of resolving anything, has only led to manifold litigations. Such a spate of litigations commenced with the review petitioners filing Title Suit No.2 (H) of 2013 in the Court of Munsiff, Shillong against the present respondent, seeking specific performance of the terms of the said Family Settlement dated 22.11.2012. The reliefs claimed in the said suit are as under:-

"In the circumstances stated above it is prayed your Honour may be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the above-named defendant as follows :-

1. For specific performance of the various covenants and stipulations contained in the Memorandum Recording Family Settlement dated 22.11.2012.

2. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering in the day-to-day affairs and management of business and finance of Pegasus Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

3. For full