A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the record or new evidence; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not qualify for review.

ORDER

The instant review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC is directed against the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by this Court in writ petition No.2082/2005, whereby this Court while allowing the petition has held that the very mutation of the names of respondents No.4, 6 and 7, in the petition, in the Revenue Records could not be sustained, as the original owners i.e. Gulabchandra and Chandrashekhar themselves had lost right and title in the said property, therefore, they could not had transferred any better title to them, accordingly, the order of Tehsildar dated 04.02.2014 in case No.26/13-14/B-121 was set aside and the entries made in Khasras in favour of respondents No.6 and 7 were also directed to be deleted.

2. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order requires to be reviewed and recalled due to the reason that in the entire order there is no mention of sale deed dated 04.08.1969, whereby Chandra Shekhar, who was the original owner of the property in question had sold a portion of the land to one Lochan Prasad Katare, whose name was recorded on the basis of said sale deed in the revenue records on 11.12.2000 and thereafter had sold the property to the present petitioner and as the said aspect goes to the root of the matter, since Chandra Shekhar has already divested his rights in the property in favour of the predecessors in title of the petitioner, filing of the civil suit without impleading the person having the title was impermissible and in wake of the fact that the rights of the purchaser would get affected could not have filed the suit and the benefit of dismissal of said suit could not be taken by the respondents, as it would not bebinding upon Lochan Prasad Katere.

3. It was further argued that the sale deed in favour of predecessors in title of the petitioner, Lochan Prasad Katare was executed on 04.08.1969 by Chandra Shekhar out of his share and thereafter civil suit was filed in the year 1972 by Chandra Shekhar and Gulabchandra praying for restitution of possession, which though initially was decreed but thereafter was dismissed in first appeal, which was upheld till this Court and though Lochan Prasad Katare was proper and necessary party to the suit without impleading him the suit was filed, which cannot bound him as well as successor in interest/title.

4. It was further argued that otherwise also filing of civil suit by Chandra Shekhar and Gulab Chandra in collusion with petitioner of the writ petition, to divest the present appellant and Lochan Prasad Katare from their property rights cannot be ruled out and the fraud played upon the Court cannot make any rights in favour of predecessors in title of the petitioner in the writ petition disappear and as it is settled preposition that fraud vitiates everything, no benefit of the judgement and decree passed by the first appellate Court can be derived by the respondents/writ petitioners.

5. It was further argued that otherwise also the petition was filed against the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar, whereas there existed dispute as to the title, which could have been resolved on by the civil Court as it was their exclusive domain and in the light of judgement passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Chtu Batte reported in AIR 1976 MP 160; the order impugned herein needs to be reviewed and recalled.

6. Further, to bolster his submissions reliance was placed in the matter of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naid Vs. Jagannath reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 for the preposition that the principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants, as the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands and as the very suit filed by Chandra Shekhar after his rights were divested in the property