SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus VINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 865 · Decided: 03-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2020] 11 S.C.R. 865
865
SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
v.
VINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 03, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114 and Or. 47, r. 1 –
Review of Judgment by the High Court – Predecessor of the
appellants filed a civil suit against the respondents-original
defendants for declaration of registered sale deed dated 25.03.1995
executed by original defendant no.3 in favour of original defendant
nos. 1 & 2 regarding a house as null and void and for permanent
injunction against defendant nos. 1 & 2 restraining them from
transferring the disputed property to any other person – The suit
was dismissed by the Trial Court – Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the
First Appeal – During the pendency of the First Appeal, the
defendant no.1-respondent no.1 filed an application to dismiss
appeal and for direction to the appellant-plaintiff to vacate the
property – Appellant-plaintiff sought amendment in relief as regards
the issuance of permanent injunction and restraining defendant
nos.1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly from the
disputed house – High Court dismissed the said application on the
ground of delay and laches, however, granted permission to the
appellants to file a separate suit – Thereafter, the High Court
dismissed the suit – However, while dismissing the appeal the High
Court also made observations as regards the possession of the
disputed house and on analysis of the deposition of PW1 and PW2
and considering the material on record and considering the fact
that during the pendency of the appeal the original defendant no.1
himself filed an application for getting the possession from the
plaintiff of the disputed house, which was withdrawn, the High Court
made observations in regards the possession of the plaintiffs of the
disputed house – Almost 2 years after the judgment of the High
Court in First Appeal, the respondent nos.1 & 2-defendant nos.1 &
2 sought review of the said observation made by the High Court
regarding the possession in para 20 of the judgment – The High
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
866
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
Court allowed the review application and ordered to delete para 20
of the Judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 passed in First Appeal
– Aggrieved, the original plaintiff preferred appeal before the
Supreme Court – Held: The High Court has clearly overstepped the
jurisdiction vested in the Court u/Or. 47 Rule 1 CPC – No ground
as envisaged u/Or. 47 Rule 1 CPC was made out to review the
observations made in para 20 – It is required to be noted and as
evident from para 20, the High Court made observations in para
20 with respect to possession of the plaintiffs on appreciation of
evidence on record more particularly the deposition of the plaintiff
(PW1) and his witness (PW2) and on appreciation of the evidence,
the High Court found that the plaintiff is in actual possession of the
said house – Therefore, when the observation with respect to the
possession of the plaintiff were made on appreciation of evidence/
material on record, it cannot be said that there was an error apparent
on the face of proceedings which were required to be reviewed in
exercise of powers u/Or. 47 Rule 1 CPC – Thus, the High Court in
exercise of review jurisdiction could not have without sufficient and
just reasons reviewed its own judgment.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114 and Or.47, r.1 – Power
of Review – Held: From the bare reading of s.114 CPC, it appears
that the said substantive power of review u/s.114 CPC has not laid
down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power
of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court
for exercising its power to review its decision – However, an order
can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds
mentioned in Or. 47 r.1 CPC – The powers of review cannot be
exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be
exercised in the guise of power of review.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be
proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section
114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when
a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by
an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is
preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an
order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as
A
B
C
D

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