LexN.ANANTHA REDDY versus ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 555 N.ANANTHA REDDY v. ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.10779-10780 of 2013) A DECEMBER 2, 2013 B [R.M. LODHA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Review: Review jurisdiction - Held: Is extremely limited and C unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review - The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face - Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise - It does not permit rehearing of o the matter on merits - In the instant case, the High Court while considering the application for review, had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded in the suit and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order dated 08.06.2011 - The course followed by E High Court is clearly flawed - High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 08. 06. 2011 - High Court was not at all justified to review the order dated 08.06.2011 - Impugned order is set aside. In a suit for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation and the Assistant City Planner, respondents nos. 2 and 3, respectively, from interfering with the construction being put up by the plaintiff (respondent no. 1 ), the appellant (i.e. plaintiff's neighbor) filed applications F for impleadment and interim relief claiming infringement G of his right of light and air, if the construction by the plaintiff was commenced and completed. The trial court allowed the applications and the High Court by its order dated 8.6.2011 dismissed the revision petitions filed by 555 H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A the plaintiff. However, In the applications for review flied by the plaintiff, the High Court, by order dated 13.12.2011, recalled its order dated 8.6.2011 and directed the trial court to reconsider the appllcatlons for lmpleadment afresh. B Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The review jurisdiction Is extremely limited and unless there Is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. C The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake Is self-evident, needs no search and stares at Its face. Review Jurisdiction Is not an appeal In disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. [para 9] [561 ·F·G] D 1.2. In the Instant case, the High Court while considering the application for review, had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded In the suit flied by respondent No. 1 and, In the light of E the view which it took, it recalled Its earlier order dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the High Court Is clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded Its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 08.06.2011.The High Court was not at all justified to F review the order dated 08.06.2011. The Impugned order dated 13.12.2011 Is set aside. [para 9, 11 and 12] [561 ·E· F; 562-F] G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10779-780 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2011 of the High Court of A. P. at Hyderabad in RCMP No. 5278 and 5279 of 2011 in CRP No. 3459 and 3465 of 2010. Bina Madhavan, Praseena E. Joseph, S. Udaya Kumar N.ANANTHA REDDY v. ANSHU KATHURIA 557 Sagar, Shivendra Singh, Rahul Pandey (for Lawyers Knit & Co.) A for the Appellant. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Filza Moonis, Mohd, Wasay Khan, D. Bharat Kumar, Sayooj Mohandas M., Abhijit Sengupta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. B 2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration C and perpetual injunction against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2 herein) and the Assistant City Planner (respondent No. 3 herein). In the suit, the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009 issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 be declared as illegal, void and not D legally tenable. It was further prayed that the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) have no right to interfere with the construction being put up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the two defendants, their officers/officials/servants from interfering with the suit E scheduled propert
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.