Allahabad High Court
Shambhu Nath Singh Alias Pancham vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 ... on 3 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49512
Court No. - 50
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 425 of 2024
Applicant :- Shambhu Nath Singh Alias Pancham
Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. NIL of 2024.
1. Heard Sri Alok Saxena and Ms. Ananya Verma, learned counsel for the review applicant, Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, advocate holding brief of Sri Abhishek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for contesting private respondents and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant review application has been filed along with the prayer for condonation of delay of 48 days against the final judgment dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court by which writ petition filed in the year 1981 was dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The explanation given for delay of 48 days in filing the review application is satisfactory.
4. Delay in filing the review application is condoned.
Order on Review Application
1. The instant review application has been filed by Sri Alok Saxena and Ms. Ananya Verma, learned counsel who was not counsel in the writ petition nor they have argued the matter before this Court. Inspite of the aforementioned facts the Court has heard Sri Alok Saxena as well as Ms. Ananya Verma, learned counsel for review applicant.
2. Learned counsel for review applicant submitted that in view of the ground set up as ground no. 1 to 21 in the review application, the impugned judgment dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court should be reviewed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Consolidation No. 6427 of 1985 Bachoo Versus D.D.C. & others dated 23.07.2021 in support of his arrangement.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has decided the writ petition on merit by reasoned judgment, as such review application can not be entertained in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in (2023) 3 SCR 47 S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & others.
4. Sri Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel submitted that review application at the instance of different counsel cannot be entertained in view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 82 of 2024 in Writ B No. 3670 of 1988 Amarnath & other Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation & others.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the writ petition arising about title dispute filed before this Court in the year 1981 has been dismissed on merit after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner (Sri Upendra Nath Yadav) as well as learned counsel for the private respondents.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in JT 1997 (8) SC 480, Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others has held as under in Paragraph Nos.7, 8 & 9:-
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174] (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined:
"What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error."
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
8. The Judgment of Parsion Devi (supra) has been followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment reported in JT 2002 (10) SC 197 (State of Haryana & Others Vs. Mohinder Singh & Others).
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2023 160 RD107 (S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors. and S. Narsimha Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors. has held that review is not rehearing of the proceeding which has been decided on merit.
10. The case law of Hon'ble Apex Court as cited by learned Counsel for private respondents on the scope of review application in the case of S. Murali Sundaram (Supra) is also applicable in the present matter.
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as argued by learned counsel for the parties and ratio of law laid down in Parsion Devi (supra), no ground is made out to review / modify the judgment dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court on merit after hearing the counsel for the parties.
12. Review application is misconceived and rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 3.4.2025
Neetu
