SUMAN AND ANOTHER V/S. MEENAKSHI AND OTHERS

Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and

Mr. Anshuman Sethi, Advocate for

the applicant/petitioners.

*****

Present Review Application under Section 114(b) read with

Order 47 and Section 94(e) & Section 151 of CPC has been filed seeking review of judgment/order dated 01.12.2025; vide which the Civil Revision No. 2191 of 2023 filed by the review-applicant laying challenging to the dismissal of his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, had been

dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the review- applicant that although all submissions made by the learned counsel at time of hearing of the Civil Revision petition have been duly noted/recorded in the order dated 1.12.2025; however, it is contented that the judgment dated 01.12.2025 does not deal with and decide many important issues which were urged at the time of hearing. To buttress his submission, learned counsel submits that in para 14 of the judgment/order dated 01.12.2025, it has been wrongly noted by this Court that “the petitioners had already exhausted their remedy of filing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by way of their first application dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 02.12.2021 (Annexure P-4). Admittedly, no revision

was filed by the petitioners to challenge the order (Annexure P-4); rather the petitioners have again filed the present application (Annexure P-7) on the same grounds.” It is contended that this Court was incorrect in observing that review applicants had already exhausted their remedy by way of filing first application dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-2) under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

3. It is accordingly prayed that the present review application be allowed; and judgment/order dated 01.12.2025 be reviewed.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the review- applicant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and the order dated 01.12.2025. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions advanced on behalf of the review applicant.

5. The only/primary ground on which the review-applicant is seeking review of the judgment/order dated 01.12.2025 is encapsulated in para 10 of the Review Application, which reads as under: -

“That a careful perusal of the judgment dated 01.12.2025 reveals that the same does not deal and decides many important issues which were urged at the time of hearing on 01.12.2025 and which have been highlighted here-in-above in this review application and thus there is manifest error in overlooking the documents and circumstances emanating on record which can be termed as an error apparent on the face of record and non-consideration of relevant documents. The applicants are sanguine that they have a strong case in their favour and in case their claim is not countenanced, they will suffer immeasurable loss and injury. Law is well settled that power of judicial review of its own order inheres in every court to prevent miscarriage of justice.”

6. Besides being vague and general, in nature, the above said averments do not disclose any material error in the judgment dated 1.12.2025. Moreover, the operative paras 10 to 12 of the order dated

01.12.2025 read as follows:-

“10. The facts of the case have already been noted here-in-above. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners/defendants No. 3 and 4 that the plaintiffs, in their plaint (Annexure P-1) have admitted the execution of Release Deed and Gift Deed (Annexures P- 5 and P-6, respectively); and they have also admitted the registration, execution and/or their signatures on the said documents. However, perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-1) shows that in Para No. 4 (vi) of the plaint, the plaintiffs have categorically averred as follows:-

"Para No. 4 (i) το (ν) XXX XXY XXX (vi) It is pertinent to submit here that as far as the memory of the plaintiffs goes the alleged signatures of plaintiffs over the release deed of defendant No. 2 has been obtained by them