Allahabad High Court
Ram Garib And 5 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 6 ... on 29 February, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved- 20.02.2024
Delivered- 29.02.2024
Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:36084
Court No. - 36
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 59 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Garib And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Abhishek Singh,Suresh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This review application is filed seeking review of a judgement dated 07.12.2023 passed in Writ B No. 19484 of 2001.
2. This review petition is filed mainly on a ground that subsequently to the impugned judgment was passed, some new evidence were found and in this regard relevant para of review application are mentioned below -:
"A. In Khatauni 1359F, the name of petitioner i.e. Balesar has continued as co- sharer, True copy whereof is being appended as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this review petition.
B. In Family register of 1955, House no. 33 is recorded in the name of Kaulesar, House no.34 A is recorded in the name of Ramdas, House no.34 B is recorded in the name of Petitioner's father Balesar. True copy whereof is being appended as ANNEXURE NO.2 to this review petition.
C. In the voter list of 1955 the name of aforesaid Balesar is recorded. True copy whereof is being appended as ANNEXURE NO.3 to this review petition.
D. The compromise between parties before Deputy Director Consolidation Azamgarh dated 22/04/1980 & 02/09/1990. True copy whereof is being appended as ANNEXURE NO.4 to this review petition."
3. Sri Suresh Pratap Singh, learned advocate for applicants has submitted that if above referred evidence is considered, the fate of writ petition would be different.
4. Law in regard to scope of review has been recently reiterated by Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agrawal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another, 2023:INSC:963 and relevant para thereof are mentioned below -:
"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
5. The applicants/petitioners have placed reliance on subsequent discovered evidence, however, they are Khatauni of 1959F, Family Register of 1955, voter list of 1955 and alleged compromise occurred in the year 1989-90 that is the documents exist much prior to the judgement passed by this Court.
6. It is not in dispute that writ petition was filed in the year 2001 and was decided in 2023 i.e. it remained pending for more than two decades but the petitioner have not brought on record above referred evidence.
7. Therefore, present is not a case of discovery of new facts. Above referred documents were within the knowledge of the petitioner and were not brought on record. Otherwise also, I have carefully perused the impugned order wherein all contentions raised by petitioner were considered and by a reasoned order, taking note of factual and legal position, it was held that Revisional Authority, within its wide power, has considered oral as well as documentary evidence and come to a conclusion that orders passed by two lower Authorities were contrary to law.
8. In above circumstances, since there is no ground to review the impugned order, therefore, this review application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.2.2024
N. Sinha
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
