HARIDAS DAS versus SMT. USHA RANI BANIK AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 21-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HARIDAS DAS 
A 
V. 
SMT. USHA RANI BANIK AND ORS. 
MARCH 21, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
REVIEW PETITION-Scope of Error Apparent-Civil Procedure Code-
Section 114, Order XLV!l Rule I and Order If Rule 2-Review of the decision 
rendered by High Court in Second Appeal-Parameters required for review- C 
Owner of suit property orally agreeing to sell suit property to appellant-
Possession of property delivered to appellant on his making part payment-
Appellant filing Suit No. 201185 for protection of his possession of suit 
property-Appellant filing another Suit No. I of 1986 for specific performance 
of agreement for sale-During pendency of this suit, Owner executing a sale 
deed in favour of respondent-Appellant filing Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 for D 
cancellation of said sale deed-Trial Court decreeing this suit and High Court 
upholding the decree-Subs,equently, High Court entertaining and allowing a 
review application-Held, High Court erred in accepting the prayer for review 
as the question whether 1985 suit was hit by 0 fl R 2 is not relevant to the 
1987 suit-High Court has erroneously held about infraction of 0 II R 2-No E 
mistake or error apparent on record found to justifY entertaining review petition. 
The owner of the suit property entered into an oral agreement in 
1982 with appellant for sale of suit property. Appellant paid part of the 
sale consideration. Possession of the suit property was handed over to the 
appellant with a promise that a sale deed would be executed in his favour F 
within three years. Appellant paid the balance consideration and asked 
the owner to execute the registered sale deed in his favour. In view of 
threatened dispossession, the appellant with a view to protect his 
possession, filed Title Suit No. 201/1985. In this plaint, he exclusively 
reserved his right to file another suit for specific performance of sale G 
agreement. He filed another suit No. 1 of 1986 praying for execution of 
sale deed in his favour. During pendency of this suit, the owner executed 
a sale deed in favour of respondent. Appellant filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 
for cancellation of said sale deed. The said suit was decreed. Appeal filed 
against the said decree was allowed. The High Court allowed the second 
87 
H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006) 3 S.CR. 
A appeal restoring decree of lower Court. Respondent filed a review petition 
which was allowed. Appellant came in appeal to this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. A perusal of Order XLVll, Rule 1 shows that review of 
B a judgment or an order could be sought : (a) from the discovery of new 
and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence 
was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter 
or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the 
decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or 
C error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason. The 
former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, 
and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which 
two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of 
the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case 
or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding 
D precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. Where 
the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and 
efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its 
order with the greatest circumspection. (94-B-C; 92-F-G, HI 
E 
. Mis Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra 
Pradesh. AIR (1964) SC 1372; Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari 
Choudhary. AIR (1995) SC 455; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak 
Sharma, AIR (1979) SC 1047; Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) 
SC 1908; Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa 
Triuymale, AIR (1960) SC 137 and Parsion Devi v. Sumiri Devi, (19971 8 
F sec 715, relied upon. 
Panduranga Dhondi Chougule v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR (1966) SC 
153, referred to. 
G 
2. The High Court had clearly fallen in error in accepting the prayer 
for review. First, the crucial question which according to the High Court 
was necessary to be adjudicated \Vas question whether the Title Suit No. 
201 of 1985 was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.