Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
S. Madhusudhan Reddy - Appellant
Versus
V. Narayana Reddy and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeals No. 5503-04 of 2022 Arising Out of Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9602-03 of 2022
Along With
S. Narsimha Reddy - Appellant
Versus
V. Narayana Reddy and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5505 of 2022 Arising Out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11290 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Oder XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 – Review – Review of an earlier order cannot be done unless court is satisfied that material error which is manifest on face of order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness – Error must be apparent on face of record and not one which has to be searched out – In exercise of review jurisdiction, Court cannot reappreciate evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter – Under garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening conclusions arrived at in a judgment – Power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which enables Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. (Paras 14, 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 114 read with Oder XLVII Rule 1 – Review – An order can be reviewed by Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in guise of exercising power of review – In guise of exercising powers of review, Court can correct a mistake but not substitute view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter – A Judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of judgment, subject to condition that such evidence was not within knowledge of party seeking review or could not be produced by it when order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence – There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on face of record – An erroneous decision can be corrected by Superior Court, however an error apparent on face of record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction – In order to satisfy requirements prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when decree was passed, nor could party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of order – Recourse to successive review petitions against same order is impermissible. (Paras 25, 26, 33 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 29th April, 2022 passed by Single Judge of the High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad, allowing the review petitions filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein. As a result of allowing review petitions, the common judgment and order dated 09th July, 2013 passed by predecessor Bench upholding the common order passed by Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, has been set aside and as a sequel thereto, the orders passed by Tahsildar, Shadnagar, accepting surrender of protected tenancy rights by ancestors of the appellant have been confirmed.
Only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the respondents/review petitioners had made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2013 by satisfying criteria for entertaining a second set of review petitions, having failed to succeed in the first set of review petitions.
Findings of Court:
Second set of review petitions were nothing short of an abuse of process of the court and ought to have been rejected by the High Court as not maintainable, without having gone into the merits of the matter.
Result : Appeals allowed.
The legal document emphasizes the limited scope and strict criteria for the exercise of review jurisdiction. It clarifies that recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible, unless the party can demonstrate the discovery of new and important evidence that was not available earlier despite due diligence (!) (!) (!) . The review process is confined to correcting errors that are manifest on the face of the record, rather than reappreciating evidence or substituting the view taken in the original decision (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The document underscores that errors which require detailed reasoning or involve mere disagreements with the merits of the case do not qualify as errors apparent on the record (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . It highlights that the power of review is not an inherent power but is conferred by law, and it must be exercised within the boundaries of specific legal provisions, primarily Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the importance of exercising due diligence before passing a judgment is stressed, as the discovery of new evidence after the order was made must be relevant and of such a nature that it could have altered the outcome had it been available earlier (!) (!) . The document also notes that a review cannot be used as an avenue to reargue points already considered and rejected, nor to correct errors that are not self-evident or require extensive reasoning to identify (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the principles outlined prohibit the filing of successive review petitions on the same grounds, especially when no new evidence has been discovered and the alleged errors are not apparent on the record. The review process is a mechanism for correcting only clear and manifest errors, not for redeciding issues or rehashing arguments already settled (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Hima Kohli, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 29th April, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, allowing the review petitions filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (IA No.2 of 2014 in Revision CRPMP No. 6377 of 2014 moved in and Civil Revision Petition No.2786 of 2013 and IA No.1 of 2014 in Revision CRMP No.4997 / 2014 moved in and Civil Revision Petition No.2787 /2013). As a result of allowing the review petitions, the common judgment and order dated 09th July, 2013 passed by the predecessor Bench upholding the common order dated 23rd March, 2013 in Cases No. F1/3/2005 and F1/4/2005 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, has been set aside and as a sequel thereto, the orders dated 31st March, 1967 passed by the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, accepting the surrender of protected tenancy rights by the ancestors of the appellant have been confirmed.
3. The appeals have a chequered history that dates back to the year 1967. The facts relevant for deciding the present appeals are as follows:-
3.1 Late Shri Chandra Reddy and late Shri Chenna Reddy, both sons of Buchi Reddy, were protected tenants in respect of separate parcels of land situated in different survey numbers of Kammadanam Village, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District,1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’]. The recorded landlord of the protected tenants was late Venkat Anantha Reddy, who was the Karta of a joint family comprising of himself and his brother, late Laxma Reddy. On the basis of an oral partition of the land that took place between the two brothers, the subject land fell to the share of late L. Harshavardhan Reddy (respondent No.6), son of late Laxma Reddy. Pertinently, L. Harshavardhan Reddy expired during the pendency of the review petitions and L. Sameera Reddy was brought on record as his legal heir. As per the respondents, late Shri Chandra Reddy, who was a protected tenant in respect of the subject land measuring 57 acres and 16 guntas, had surrendered his protected tenancy rights on submitting a written application dated 6th August, 1966 to the Tehsildar. A similar application was submitted by the three legal heirs of Late Chenna Reddy (Ram Reddy, Chandra Reddy and Laxma Reddy) in respect of land measuring 98 acres 18 guntas. The respondents claim that on receiving the said applications, the Tehsildar, Shadnagar, recorded the statements of the applicants and after confirming the identity of the parties, issued a public notice and thereafter, accepted the surrender on satisfying the requirements prescribed in the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950,2[For short ‘Act’]. After accepting the surrender applications, the names of the protected tenants were struck off from the final records of tenancy, vide order dated 31st March, 1967.
3.2 It is also the version of the respondents that the protected tenants had surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of late Venkat Anantha Reddy pursuant to an understanding that the latter would not oppose the 38-B Certificate issued by the Tenancy Tribunal in favour of Chandra Reddy and the sons of late Chenna Reddy in respect of the parcel of land measuring 85 acres 23 guntas situated in Kammadanam Village. In other words, there was a reciprocity between the protected tenants and the landlord based on which, the landlord relinquished his rights in respect of land measuring 85 acrs 23 guntas in exchange of the surrender of the subject land by Chandra Reddy and the legal heirs of late Chenna Reddy.
3.3 On the other hand, the appellant, who is the legal heir of the original tenants, claims that his ancestors were dispossessed from the subject land in the year 1975 when they were trying to obtain 38-E Certificate from the authorities. Only in the year 2001 when the legal heirs of the protected tenants had applied for the final record of tenancy, did they disco
(1) Recourse to successive review petitions against same order is impermissible.(2) Review of an earlier order cannot be done unless court is satisfied that material error which is manifest on face o....
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
The court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons in administrative decisions and ruled that the Joint Collector exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter without cogent reasons.
The court emphasized the necessity of timely appeals and the importance of recording reasons in administrative decisions, restoring the Occupancy Rights Certificate to the petitioners.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for restoration of lands should be counted from the date of dispossession, and the power of review is restricted to s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
