A review application would be maintainable only on specific grounds such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 24.12.2018 passed in I.A. No. 5016 of 2018 in O.S. No. 138 of 2011 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.A. Mukheed and Sri Abu Akram, learned counsel appearing for the respondents respectively. Perused the record.

3. The facts relevant for consideration in disposal of this civil revision petition, briefly, stated as under:

The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, filed suit in O.S. No. 138 of 2011 against the petitioner herein, who is the defendant, for eviction from the suit schedule premises bearing No. 6-3-456, admeasuring 650 square yards situated at Punjagutta and to pay Rs. 35,35,000/- towards arrears of rent from 01.08.2001 to 01.01.2019 for 101 months and also to pay Rs. 1,10,000/- per month with effect from 01.01.2010. The petitioner herein resisted the suit by filing written statement and during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner vacated the schedule premises and handed over the vacant possession of the same on 31.05.2012. The learned Chief Judge, after considering the evidence, oral and documentary, decreed the suit with costs by judgment, dated 04.12.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed review application in I.A. No. 5016 of 2018 contending that no documentary evidence was produced despite due diligence and the documents i.e. G.O.Ms. No. 94, dated 30.11.1994 was superseded by G.O.Ms. No. 7, dated 01.02.1997 enhancing rent from Rs. 1,000/- per month to Rs. 41,560/- per month. Subsequently, orders were issued cancelling the same vide G.O.Ms. No. 137, dated 15.07.2000. Therefore, the G.O., forming the basis for issuance of the proceedings dated 08.09.2001 did not exist and the said documents were not filed and the suit was decreed without any record supporting the said findings. Apart from that, the plaintiff examined PW.1, who was not properly authorised to file the suit and the rent fixed by the second respondent-Board is highly excessive. Hence, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2017 in O.S. No. 138 of 2011. The said review application was resisted by the respondents by filing counter stating that the suit was decreed after considering the evidence of both the parties and documents and the review is maintainable only in lieu of any error or mistake occurred on the face of record and the review application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The learned Chief Judge, after hearing both the parties and considering the material on record dismissed I.A. No. 5016 of 2018 vide order, dated 24.12.2018.

4. While dismissing the application, the learned Chief Judge at Para Nos. 7 and 8 observed as under:

“7. He mainly questioned regarding the fixation of rent of Rs. 35,000/- per month. Along with the Review Petition, he filed 13 documents, which were not filed during the pendency of the suit. He stated several facts and quoted several G.Os. which are filed presently and requested the Court to Review the judgment basing on the said documents, which are not part of the record at the time of disposing of main suit.

8. The respondent rightly pointed out that Review Petition is maintainable only when there is any error apparent on the face of the record. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Court, he is at liberty to prefer the appeal. The review sought by him basing on the documents filed by him now is not maintainable and it is beyond the scope of the review and therefore, the Review Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.”

5. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that G.O.Ms. No. 94, dated 30.11.1994 was superseded by G.O.Ms. No. 7, dated 01.02.1997, enhancing the rent from Rs. 1,000/- per month