The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the review petition shall be maintainable to address any error apparent on the face of record. The mere fact that different views on the same subject are possible, is no ground to review the earlier judgement. The error contemplated under Order XLVII of the C.P.C. is that which is apparent on the face of record.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the order passed in which it was stated that for more than 12 years, the petitioner society was in possession. The very entry made in the record of rights indicates that the appellant/petitioner- Society was in unlawful possession of the land. This further confirms their control of the land. Although this aspect of the case was not taken into consideration when deciding the Second Appeal, the First Appellate Court overturned the learned trial Court's decision on the grounds that the revenue entries were made in favor of the defendant/State. The present review application is filed for modification of the judgment passed by the court in the second appeal.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the oral evidence with regard to the possession of the appellant/petitioner society was not considered by the first appellate court or by this court. it was furthermore submitted that the Trust Deed made in the petitioner/society's favor was the foundation upon which the petitioner/society claimed ownership of the property and obtained possession of the aforementioned land.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the law is very well settled on the point that the review petition cannot be used as "an appeal in disguise" since it has a narrow objective. Any error apparent on the record must be addressed in the review petition in order to be maintained. The possibility of differing opinions on the same matter does not warrant reviewing the previous decision. The error contemplated under Order XLVII of the C.P.C. is that which is apparent on the face of the record.
It was furthermore observed that the learned counsel for the Petitioner's oral evidence, and the trust deed, have not been considered while recording the illegal possession of the petitioner in the judgment. However, the reason for not accepting the claim of settlement and plea of adverse possession has been discussed in the judgment.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the review petition is misdirected and raises issues which cannot be considered while hearing a review application.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the review petition.
Case title: Radha Soami Satsang Beas Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Civil Review No. 79 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Chandra Kumar Rohra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Khatari, Advocate, Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Samat, Advocate, Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.AG. II
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
