A non-consideration of an application separately when the judgment disposes of all pending applications does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

Petitioner-Kanta Devi has filed the present review petition, under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), seeking review of the judgment, dated 22^nd

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

September, 2025, passed in RSA No. 160 of 2016, titled as Kanta Devi versus Bhupinder Pal and others.

2. As per the factual position, RSA No. 160 of 2016, filed by petitioner-Kanta Devi, was admitted for hearing on 9^th August, 2016, on thef ollowing substantial question of law:

“1. Whether thet possession of a person permissive or rotherwise has to be protected by the grant of the relief of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and dispossession has to be made in accordance with law and whoether denial of such relief by the courts below is proper?”

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the said appeal was dismissed, by this Court, on

22^nd September, 2025.

4. The said judgment of this Court has been sought to be reviewed, on the ground, that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had filed an application, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, being CMP No. 2584 of 2022, for placing on record the factum of tenancy of one Jalpu, commencing since 1960 and also Khasra Girdawari, for the year 2010-2011.

5. According to the petitioner, in the Khasra Girdawari, the factum of construction of shops and house on Khasrra No. 332, has duly been recorded, whereas Khasra No. 331 has been shown as vacant.

6. As per the further stand of the petitioner, the said application has not been considered by this Court, whereas, on 22^nd March, 2022, an o rder has been passed that the said application would be considered at the time of final decision of the case. t

7. It has been mentioned in the petition that while deciding the case on 22^nd September, 2025, this Court has held that all the pending applications stand disposed of, however, the said application has not been decided.

8h. In nutshell, non-deciding the application, under gOrder 41 Rule 27 CPC, by this Court, while deciding the iRSA, is stated to be ‘mistake or error apparent on the face of the record’.

9. Despite various opportunities given to the appearing respondents, reply has not been filed by them.

10. Heard.

11. Perusal of the judgment, dated 22^nd September, 2025, passed in RSA No. 160 of 2016, demonstrates that this Court, while deciding the appeal, has specifically held that all the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Meaning thereby, the application, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has also been dismissed.

12. Moreover, non-deciding the application, under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC separately, to the considered opinion of this Court, does not fall within the terminology ‘mistake or error apparent otn the face of the record’, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case, titled as Parsion Devi and others versus Sumitri Devi and others, reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, has held that even, an erroneous decision does not fall within the definition of ‘hmistake or error apparent on the face of the record’. In this gregard, reference can be made to paras 7 to 9, of the ijudgment, which read, as under:

“7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1964 SC

1372, this Court opined:

“What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se