HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU …

Pronounced on: 03.01.2025 Mohd. Farooq …….Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr R. Koul, Advocate Versus Abdul Lateef and another ……Respondent(s)

Through: CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT

1. Review of the Order/judgement dated 28^th December 2023, passed by this Court in MA no.459/2012 titled as Mohd Farooq v. Abdul Latif Bhagwan and another, is sought by appellant/review petitioner on the grounds made mention of in the instant petition.

2. I have heard counsel for petitioner and considered the matter.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that it was the case of petitioner/appellant that he purchased land measuring 1 ½ marla falling under Khasra no.2198 min situate at Village Kishtwar from respondent no.2 vide sale deed 23^rd October 2007 and raised construction therein. The said sale deed was questioned by respondent no.1 before the court of Sub Judge, Kishtwar, claiming right under Right of Prior Purchase Act, alleging to be co-sharer of respondent no.2. The suit was resisted. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal was preferred by respondent no.1, which was allowed setting-aside Trial Court judgement and remanding matter back for fresh adjudication. Learned counsel for review petitioner also avers that the sole issue raised in the appeal and proceedings below rested on certified copies of sale deeds which were placed on record of Trial Court to exhibit four different sale deeds by different vendors in same khasra numbers to different persons. Reference has been made by him to judgement dated 20^th September 2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.14630/2015 titled as Appaiya v. Andimuthu, in which it was said that certified copies of sale deeds can be taken into consideration as proof of the sales without any other formal evidence and that the said judgement also applies to the case in hand.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that while considering abovementioned contentions, the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be taken into consideration.

5. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under:

“1. Application for review of judgment. - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order.”

6. An application for review would lie, among others, when an order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. Limitations on exercise of power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.

7. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on ac