Smt. Siddh Sri Devi vs Satish Chandra Tripathi And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6812 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Civil Misc. Review Application No. 219251 of 2016. 
 
In Re:
 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 174 of 2012
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Siddh Sri Devi
 
Respondent :- Satish Chandra Tripathi And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Parihar,Prabhat Agrawal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sandeep Saxena
 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

This review petition has been moved by the appellant against the judgement dated 11.05.2016, passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 174 of 2012 - (Smt. Siddh Sri Devi Vs. Satish Chandra Tripathi & Others),

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the matter relating to second appeal in question, there has been proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A, C.P.C, which was not mentioned by this Court in the impugned judgement. He further submitted that the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(two lac) were claimed by the plaintiff -appellant, which was also not discussed in the judgement. He further submits that the report of Survey Commissioner was also pertinent in this matter, which was not discussed in impugned judgement and order was passed ignoring the laws cited by the appellant side. Therefore the impugned judgement should be reviewed.

From perusal of the record, it is found that at the time of admission of Section Appeal, on 10.02.2012, this Court had framed only one substantial question of law. At the time of judgement, after appreciating the submission and record, this Court had quoted that substantial question of law and thereafter passed the judgement on it. Since the substantial question of law was not framed relating to the fact of cutting of trees, the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2 C.P.C, compensation claimed by the appellant or report of Survey Commission as pointed out by the applicant-appellant, therefore it was rightly not discussed in the impugned judgement, which is limited to substantial question of law framed in this matter.

There appears no illegality, infirmity or error in the impugned judgement. There is no error on the face of record in the matter that may require exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLVII C.P.C.

Accordingly, this review petition is rejected.

Order Date :- 04.11.2016.

Vinod.