The review jurisdiction does not allow for rehearing or re-examination of arguments, and must meet strict criteria under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the CPC.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

7 07-11-2025 Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned senior counsel for opposite party (O.P.) Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. Rohitabh Das, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 3 and 4.

2. The present review application has been filed by the petitioner/respondent in F.A. No. 109 of 2023 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (in short, “C.P.C.”), seeking review of the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 04 of 2025 arising out of F.A. No. 109 of 2023.

3. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred F.A. No. 109 of

2023 against the judgment dated 22.06.2023 and decree dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge-II, Patna, in Title Suit No. 478 of 2010, which have been challenged by way of the said appeal. In that appeal, an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 04 of 2025 was filed by the appellants under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , praying for stay of proceedings in Execution Case No. 767 of 2023, which arose in consequence of the judgment and decree challenged in F.A. No. 109 of 2023. After hearing both sides on I.A. No. 04 of 2025 in F.A. No. 109 of 2023, the prayer of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 (the appellants in the appeal) was allowed, and the operation of the judgment and decree impugned in the First Appeal, as well as all execution proceedings arising therefrom, were stayed. The said order dated 27.02.2025 is now sought to be reviewed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, at the time of staying the execution proceedings, this Court failed to appreciate the substantial amount of money invested by the petitioner, which had been paid to the father of the appellants (O.P. Nos. 1 and 2). To make such payment, the petitioner had taken unsecured loans from his relatives. Before the trial court, a Chartered Accountant (DW-3) admitted that he was a tenant of appellant No. 1 and paid rent to her, this admission itself demolishes the ground taken by appellant No. 1 regarding the nature of the land which forms the subject matter of the alleged agreement. While passing the order dated 27.02.2025, the most material fact as to the execution of the alleged agreement deed by the father of the appellants, which is an admitted position, was not considered. Further, an expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory compared the alleged signature of the appellants’ father with his original signature, and the expert’s opinion confirmed the same to be genuine. Order XLI Rule 5 clearly provides that protection must be afforded to both sides, and it would be justified if the plaintiff/petitioner is permitted to stay in the house which is the subject matter of the agreement till disposal of the First Appeal, as the petitioner purchased the house for his and his family’s own use and not for commercial purposes.

4.1. It is further submitted that the order dated 27.02.2025 was passed under an erroneous perception that there was a great possibility of transfer of the suit property to others, whereas no such ground was taken by the appellants (O.P.s) in their petition. The nature of the suit property was also wrongly assumed to be commercial, although it is a residential house.

4.2. As to the payment of the alleged amount, it is submitted that the sale agreement itself sufficiently establishes the same. Moreover, the signature of the deponent was accepted by appellant No. 2, daughter of late Dr. Prasun Kumar Banerjee, therefore, the execution of the alleged agreement for sale, as well as the genuineness of its contents, ought to have b