A revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable against an order dismissing a review application if the underlying decree is appealable; the correct legal remedy is to file an appeal against the original judgment and decree.

C A V Order

1. This Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the First District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. in MJC case No.39/2022 which arose out of the judgment dated 02.09.2022 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.07A/2022.

2. Facts germane for disposal of this Civil Revision are that the Respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction and for rectification of sale deed. Respondents/plaintiffs prayed that they be declared owner of suit property comprised in Khasra No.54, area 1.25 acre, situated at village Kanakpur and that Defendant No.1/applicant herein be restrained permanently from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs/respondents over suit property. It was also prayed by the plaintiffs/respondents that Defendant No.1 be directed to rectify the above mentioned Khasra number in the sale deed dated 27.03.2002 (Ex.P/3) by either executing supplementary sale deed or any other mode prescribed by law.

3. It was alleged in the plaint that Ramanlal and Kalanath were brothers. Khasra No. 54 area 1.25 acre, 0.506 hectare is suit property. Kalanath on 27.3.2002 purchased suit land from Ghasidas by a registered sale-deed. In sale-deed, Khasra No. 46/2 area 1.35 acre is mentioned which is actually Khasra No. 54 area 1.25 acre. After purchase, Kalanath came into possession of the suit property and he is in continuous possession of the said property. Since due to mistake, Khasra number has wrongly been mentioned though they are in possession of the suit property as such, the suit is required to be decreed in favour of plaintiffs/respondent and requisite relief has been sought by them. The suit property was a joint property of Parwati Bai and Ghasidas and Ghasidas is the only heir of Parwati Bai. Cause of action arose on 10.5.2014.

4. The defendant submitted written-statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint stating that Khasra number which has been mentioned in the sale deed is the actual Khasra number which cannot be rectified. Plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land. Presently, the defendant No.1 is in possession. Possession was never delivered to the plaintiffs. Ghasidas never executed sale-deed of the suit land. Suit filed for declaration and injunction is not maintainable and is barred by law of limitation. Hence, no case is made out in favour of plaintiff/respondents for grant of any relief.

5. The learned trial Court (Civil Judge, Class I, Champa, District Janjgir Champa C.G.) dismissed the suit bearing Civil Suit No.A/20/2014 on 24.12.2021 while holding that plaintiff/respondents could not prove their case, against the impugned judgment and decree, plaintiff/respondents preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.7A/2022 before the first appellate Court (1st Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, CG) which on 02.09.2022 allowed the suit of the plaintiffs and passed decree while declaring them owner in possession of suit property comprised on Khasra No.54, land measuring 1.25 acre, situated at village Kanankpur, Tahsil Champa. The present applicant/Defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure for review of the judgment dated 02.09.2022. The said application which was registered as MJC case No.39/2022 was dismissed on 23.07.2025 by First District Judge, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa while holding that Defe