ORDER

05.01.2022 Date :

Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.

A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Govt.

advocate appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 8.

2. By this review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the petitioners are seeking review of order dated 20.08.2018 passed in CRP(I/O) 7/2017.

3. By the said order, this court declined to interfere with the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court which was not interfered with in appeal before the learned first appellate Court. While disposing of the said CRP(I/O) 7/2017, this Court took note of the fact that the first appellate Court had arrived at a prima facie finding that the defendant no.1 in the suit had sold out land in excess of his share for which challenge in the suit has been made. It appears that the Court also took note of the fact that the opinion of the learned trial court was to the effect that the suit land was the joint property of the parties arrayed as respondent nos.1 to 3 as well as the petitioner no. 1 in the connected revision petition by holding that the family settlement as claimed by the petitioner no. 1 was a matter which was required to be proved in evidence.

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had purchased the suit property described in schedule-F of the plaint was purchased from the defendant no.1 in the suit and that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 had sworn an affidavit on 08.01.2014, giving their no objection to the defendant no.1 to sell the plot of land measuring 16.25 lechas land out of the total land measuring 3 katha 5 lecha and pursuant to the said affidavit, the sale deed was executed on 22.01.2014. It is submitted that for almost eight years, the petitioners have been deprived of enjoyment of their purchased land and that the incomplete construction over the suit land is now wasting away and the material stacked for further construction are all rotting in the open. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are further deprived of enjoyment of their purchased land.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, the Court is of the considered opinion that relief in the connected revision was refused on the ground morefully stated in the said order dated 20.08.2018, which, in concise is to the effect that by referring to the various authorities mentioned in the said order, this Court took a view that it was not open for the revisional Court to correct each and every error committed by the learned court below and it was held that the revisional Court would not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion exercised by both the learned courts below and it could only be exercised in case of serious dereliction of duties and fragrant violation of fundamental principles of law and justice.

6. It is yet to be proved that the defendant no.1 being the vendor was the sole owner of the land described in schedule-F of the suit. Therefore, the impugned decision of the Court is not found to suffer from any mistake or error apparent on the face of record warranting review.

7. In the quest for appreciating the jurisdiction of court while entertaining a review application, this court has come across the following cases on the power of review:-

i. Raja Prithi Chand Vs Sukhrai, AIR 1941 FC 1.

ii. Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs Pradyumansinghji Arjun-singhji, (1971) 3 SCC 844. iii. M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC

674.

iv. Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon Vs Union of India & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 2041.

v. S. Nagaraj & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 vi. Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari, (1995) 1 SCC 170.

vii. Surjit Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 10 SCC 592. viii. Lily Thomas & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 224.

ix. Surendra Kumar Vakil Vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP.