R.P. No. 552/2016 in RSA No. 144/2013

Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RSA No. 144/2013

%

23^rd December, 2016

SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR & ORS

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. Ajay Kohli, Advocate.

versus

SH. TEJA SINGH & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.46870/2016 (for exemption)

1.

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

Review Petition No. 552/2016 in RSA No. 144/2013 along with C.M.

Appl. No. 46868/2016 (for stay) and C.M. Appl. No. 46869/2016 (for

condonation of delay of 78 days in filing the review petition).

2.

This review petition seeks review of the judgment delivered by

this Court on 1.9.2016 allowing the second appeal.

3.

Two

aspects

are

urged

on

behalf

of

the

review

petitioners/respondents/defendants before this Court:-

R.P. No. 552/2016 in RSA No. 144/2013

Page 2 of 7

(i)

The suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs to challenge the

Relinquishment Deed dated 29.6.1973 executed by the husband of appellant

no. 1 (father of the other appellants) was barred by limitation, and though

the trial court by its judgment dated 16.7.2003 had decided the issue of

limitation in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs, however, the first appellate

court by its judgment dated 26.2.2013 decided the issue of limitation in

favour

of

the

review

petitioners/defendants

and

against

the

appellants/plaintiffs holding the suit to be time barred, and therefore this

Regular Second Appeal was bound to be dismissed in view of Section 3 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 even though the issue of limitation was not urged

before this Court on behalf of the review petitioners/defendants.

(ii)

When the second appeal was admitted on 2.12.2013 the substantial

question of law which was framed, and which has been reproduced in

paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment of this Court dated 1.9.2016, there

is no issue of limitation included and thus the suit of appellants/plaintiffs

had to be dismissed as time-barred.

4.

A review petition is filed under Section 114 read with Order

XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Review petition lies if

there is an error apparent on the face of record or certain new documents

have come to the notice of the parties or if in the interest of justice on a very

fundamental issue for ensuring justice a review petition is filed. Once a

R.P. No. 552/2016 in RSA No. 144/2013

Page 3 of 7

Court decides a case by a detailed judgment referring to and deciding all the

points urged, it is not permissible for one of the parties to file a review

petition to say that although a particular point was not urged the same be

now allowed to be urged by the review petitioner and the disposed of case

be re-decided on merits. Effectively, what is argued is that there is a right to

file a review petition for arguing a point, although the point in question was

not argued, i.e. on such non argued point the judgment is sought to be

reviewed for being set aside.

5.

An error apparent on the face of record necessarily means that

an issue which has been considered and decided and which is ex facie

illegally decided. If a point is not urged there does not arise an issue of

there arising an error apparent on the face of record.

6.

So far as the interest of justice requiring review is concerned, I

do not think that once a case is argued for several days and hours before the

Court resulting in a detailed judgment passed in open Court for around one

and a half hours dealing with all the aspects argued (as stated in paragraph 5

of the judgment dated 1.9.2016), then there at all can arise an issue of

interest of justice because pleadings of parties always contain several points

but it is the privilege of the parties whether or not to