SMT. MEERA BHANJA versus SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHARY

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 16-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
SMT. MEERA BHANJA 
A 
v .. 
SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHARY 
NOVEMBER 16, 1994 
[B. P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, I908-0rder 47, Rule I-Review Jurisdiction 
of High Court in setting aside earlier decision of High Court in Second 
Appeal-Ground of error apparent on face of record-Scope and ambit of 
Order 47, Rule I-Error must be such which must strike one on mere 
looking at record-Review by re-considering entire evidence-Not C 
permissible. 
The plaintiff had filed a title suit claiming partition and separate 
possession of two pfots, namely Plot Nos. 73 and 74. The plaintiff 
alternatively prayed for declaration of title and sought permanent D 
injunction in respect of two plots. 
The trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to partition of 
plot No 73 and so as Plot No. 74 was concerned the plaintiff was held 
entitled to a decree of declaration of title in respect of specific 3 
decimals of land. 
'E 
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the 
defendant preferred Title Appeal while the plaintiff filed cross 
objections against dismissal of her suit for partition of Plot No. 74. The 
appellate Court directed that the appellant would get a declaration of 
title, confirmation of possession and injunction, but so far is the F 
appellant's prayer for partition of Plot No. 74 was concerned, the 
Court confirmed the trial Judge's judgment 
On Second Appeal filed against the judgment of Appellate Court, 
the Division Bench of the High Court held that the plaintiff appellant 
was entitled to partition of Plot No. 74 also. The defendant being G 
aggrieved by the said judgment filed a Review Petition under Order 47, 
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the findings of the 
Division Bench of the High Court. The Review Petition was partly 
allowed so far as the C. S. Plot No. 74 was concerned. The Court set 
aside the decree for partition as granted by the earlier Division Bench 
in Second Appeal and directed that the Second Appeal be reheard so H 
503 
504 
SUPREME CO~T REPORTS 
(1994) SUPP. S S.C.R. 
A 
far as the question or partition of Plot No. 74 was concerned. The 
Review Partition was, however, dismissed so far as the partition decree 
for Plot No. 73 as passed by (rhll Court and as affirmed by the High 
Court, went. Thereafter, by 3 later order, Second Appeal was ordered 
to be dismissed in respect or Plot No. 74. This Appeal by special leave 
has been filed against the decision of the High Court dismissing Second 
B 
Appeal of the appellant qua Plot No. 74 as passed pursuant to the 
earlier review order. 
The appellant submitted that even though the Review Bench had 
held that there was "n ~pparent error committed by the earlier 
Division Bench in allpwlng the Second Appeal in connection with Plot · 
C 
No. 74, in substance, the latter Division Bench had sat in appeal over 
the decision or the earlier Division Bench and had passed an order 
wlterein it r~appreciated the evidence. It was contended that this 
approach or the Review Bench was beyond the scope and outside the 
jurisdiction conferred on the. court under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil 
Procedure Code, and that ht fact there was no apparent error which 
D 
could justify the impugn~~ review judgment. 
The respondent submitte<! t._at as the earlier Division Bench had 
not properly considered all tti,e relevant aspects, the latter Division 
Bench was perfectly justified ig taking the view that the earlier decision 
of the High Court suffered from a patent error or law entitling the 
E 
Review Bench to interfere with the findings and the order or the earlier 
Division Bench. 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal 
and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit or Ord1er 47, 
Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 190~. In the impugned judgment, the 
Division Bench or the High.Court has clearly observed that they were 
entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error app:!rent 
on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that 
aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on 
the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere 
looking af the record and would not require any long d~awn process of 
reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 
(508-A-G) 
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors., A.I.R 
~1979) SC

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