PARSION DEVI AND ORS. versus SUMITRI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 14-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PARSION DEVI AND ORS. 
v. 
SUMITRI DEY! AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 14, 1997 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule I. 
Review-Power of Court-Ground of review-Appellant's suit for 
C injunction decreed-Execution application-Objection by judgment debtor 
that application was time barred upheld by Executing Court-Revision 
against the order of Executing Court allowed holding that application was 
not time barred-Review by judgment debtor-Challenge to the correctness 
of order on the question of limitation without pointing out any "error 
D apparent on the face of record"-Review petition allowed reversing the 
impugned order on merit-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, review 
proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 
Ride 1-There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an 
error apparent on the face of the record-While the farmer can be corrected 
by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the 
E review jurisdiction-Jn review it is not permissible for an erroneous decision 
to be "reheard and corrected"-A review petition has a limited purpose and 
cannot be allowed to be ''an appeal in disguise' '-Recourse to review petition 
in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible . 
F 
G 
H 
. 
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 
(1965) 5 SCR 174; Smt. Meera Bhanjia v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, 
(1995) l SCC 170 and Abhiram Te/eshwar Sharma v. Abhiram Pishak Sharma 
& Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 389, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5245 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3 .97 of the Jammu & Kashmir 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 5of1989. 
Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Anu Mohla for the Appellants. 
M.L. Bhat and Ms. Pumima Bhat Kak for the Respondents. 
470 
PARISON DEVI v. SUMITRI DEVI 
471 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
This appeal by special leave calls in question an order passed by a 
single Judge (G.D. Sharma, J.) of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir on 
6.3.1997 in exercise of the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The 
learned Judge 'upset' the findings recorded on April 25, 1989 in Civil Revision 
No. 87 of 1987 by another single Judge (K.K. Gupta, J.) of that Court. 
B 
Shorn of details, brief facts necessary for disposal for this appeal are 
that on November 28, 1977 a suit, filed by the appellants, was decreed and 
an injunction was issued to the defendant-respondents to close down the 
passage carved out by opening a door from the wall and further the defendants C 
were restrained from using that passage. On August 7, 1986 an application 
for execution of the decree was filed in the Executing Court on the ground 
that the injunctions were being violated. The judgment debtor filed objections 
to the Execution Application and raised a preliminary objection to the effect 
that the Execution Application was barred by time . The Executing Court vide 
order dated May 6, 1987 upheld the preliminary objection and held the D 
Execution Application to be barred by time. The matter was taken up in 
revision to the High Court. On 25.4.1989, the Civil Revision Petition against 
the order of Executing Court was allowed. Gupta, J. allowing the civil revision 
petition held that the case was covered by Article 181 of the Jammu & 
Kashmir Limitation Act and the opinion of the Executing Court that it was E 
covered by Article 182 of the J & K Limitation Act was erroneous. It was held 
that the petition was not barred by time. The Execution Application was 
remanded to the Executing Court for decision on merits. A review petition 
came to be filed by the judgment debtors and on 6.3.1997 the review petition 
was allowed by Sharma, J. and the order dated 25.4.1989 was set at naught 
and that of the Executing Court dated 6.5.1987 restored. 
F 
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted 
that the impugned order is vitiated as it transgresses the powers of review 
available to the Court under Order 47 Rule I CPC: He submitted that the 
review petition had been treated as if it was an appeal. He also referred to G 
the grounds of the review application and urged that on none of those 
grounds was the review of the order dated 25.4.1989 justified. 
Mr. M.L. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, 
on the other hand submitted that the Review Court had only set right the 

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