Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Shafiq vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lko. ... on 28 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66835
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 175 of 2025
Mohammad Shafiq
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lko. And Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Tarun Kumar Mishra, Atul Kumar, Shreyash Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Order on C.M.Application No. IA/1/2025 (Application for condonation of delay).
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application under consideration, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the present review application is hereby condoned.
Order on Review Application
1. Heard.
2. Present review application under Chapter V Rule XII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred by the applicant in relation to final order dated 23.05.2025 passed in Writ-B No. 112 of 2025 (Aqueel Ahmad and Others vs. Deputy Director Consolidation, Lko. And Others), which reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Ankit Singh, Advocate and Shri Veer Raghav Chaubey, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent no.3.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief(s) :-
"(i) Issue a writ order of directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 8.1.2025 and order dated 21.7.2015 passed by the opposite party no.l as contained in annexure no.land 2 to this writ petition and as well as the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the opposite party no.2 as contained in annexure no 3 to this writ petition and the case may be sent back to the revisional court to decide the same on merits.
(ii) Issue a writ order or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 not to create any hindrance in the peaceful possession use and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in question."
3. Brief facts of the case, as appears from record, are as under :-
(i) An order was passed on 30.01.1999 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (in short "DDC").
(ii) Vide order dated 30.01.1999, DDC decided two revisions i.e. Revision No. 792 (Riyaz Ahmad Vs. Mujammil and ors) & Revision No. 793 (Jameel Hussain Vs. Shafiq and ors.). The order dated 30.01.1999 was passed on merits.
(iii) With the prayer to recall the final order dated 30.01.1999, an application dated 15.02.1999 was filed by respondent no.3/Mohammad Shafiq through mother Raziya Khatoon.
(iv) The aforesaid application of respondent no.3 was rejected by DDC, vide order dated 07.08.2014. The order dated 07.08.2014 reads as under :-
"??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? 15.2.1999 ?? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? 24.7.2014 ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? 5.7.2014 ? 17.7.2014 ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???-??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ???-??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???
???????? ??????? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? 15.2.1999 ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 30.1.99 ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ???????????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? 30.1.99 ?????? ???? ?????
??? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????-792 ????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ? ??????? ??????-793 ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? 30.1.1999 ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???-??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? 30.1.1999 ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???-??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? 30.1.99 ???-??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???
??? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? / ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? 15.2.99 ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????"
(v) After the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2014, another application was moved for recall of order dated 30.01.1999. This application allowed vide order dated 21.07.2015. Typed copy of the order, annexed at page 39 of the paper-book, reads as under :-
"21-7-15
???????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? 30-1-99 ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??.?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? 30-1-99 ????? ????? (??? ???? ???? ????? ?? AIR 1947 ???????? 357) ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? 30-1-99 ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? 11-8-15 ?? ??? ?? ?"
(vi) On coming to know about the order dated 21.07.2015, an application dated 28.09.2024 along with application seeking condonation of delay, which was five years and one month i.e. 1825 days, was filed.
(vii) It would be relevant to clarify here that in terms of order dated 21.07.2015, the revision of the petitioners which was decided on merits vide final order dated 30.01.1999 affirmed vide order was 07.08.2014 was restored and the same was dismissed on 27.08.2019 for want of prosecution.
(viii) On coming to know about the order dated 27.08.2019, an application dated 27.09.2024 for recall of order dated 27.08.2019 was preferred by the petitioners.
(ix) The application dated 27.09.2024, indicated above, has been rejected by DDC by the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 observing therein that delay of five years and one month i.e. 1865 days has not been properly explained.
4. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed.
5. Considered the submissions advanced by the parties and perused the records.
6. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case, indicated above, this Court finds that interference is required. It is for the following reasons :-
(i) The application for recall of the order dated 30.01.1999 preferred by the side-opposite/respondent no.3 was itself not maintainable as the order was passed on merits and this aspect as already been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, (1997) 88 RD 562 (FB).
(ii) The application dated 15.02.1999 preferred by the respondent no. 3 for recall of final order dated 30.01.1999 was rejected on merits vide order dated 07.08.2014 and thereafter for recall of the same order i.e. order dated 30.01.1999 an application on which order dated 21.07.2015 was passed was filed, which was not maintainable.
(iii) If this Court declines to cause interference in the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 then in that eventuality an illegal order i.e. order dated 21.07.2015 would revive.
(iv) The DDC while passing the order dated 08.01.2025 has not taken note of aforesaid aspect of the case.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 08.01.2025 is hereby set aside/quashed. The DDC is directed to pass afresh order after taking note of aforesaid. No order as to costs."
3. The grounds for seeking review of judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 taken in the present application, are extracted hereinunder:-
"1. Because the Hon'ble Court in passing the order dated 23.05.2025, even after noticing the fact that the order dated 21.07.2015 was illegal, did not specifically quash the order dated 21.07.2015, as being illegal and as such the said order still survives.
2. Because the Hon'ble Court in passing the order dated 23.05.2025 did not take into account the fact that the petitioners in the writ petition did not object to the maintainability of the application in which order dated 21.07.2015, was passed.
3. Because the Hon'ble Court in passing the order dated 23.05.2025 did not take into account the fact that the the writ petitioners contested the aforesaid application, even though being not maintainable.
4. Because the Hon'ble Court in passing the order dated 23.05.2025 did not take into account the fact that once the writ petitioners have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the authority concerned they are prevented from raising any plea regarding the i jurisdiction or maintainability of the application.
5. Because the Hon'ble Court in passing the order dated 23.05.2025 did not take into account the fact that if a party who voluntarily participates in proceedings without challenging maintainability at the first opportunity is estopped from raising it subsequently.
6. Because the Hon'ble Court in passing the order dated 23.05.2025 did not take into account the fact that despite specific finding in the order dated 21.7.2005 passed by the DDC, Lucknow that at the time of the passing of the order dated 30.01.1999, the review applicant, herein, was a minor, in respect of which documents were produced by him.
7. Because the Hon'ble Court in passing the order dated 23.05.2025 did not take into account the fact that the Court of DDC corrected a manifest error on the face committed by it and in no way review its earlier order dated 30.01.1999.
8. Because there is error apparent on the face of the record of the order dated 23.05.2025 as the aforesaid order has not taken the aforesaid aspect of the matter into account."
4. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.25,.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:?
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
5. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.
6. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, observed as under:-
9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result??? A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace."
10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that 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.
11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very pivotal observations:?
"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."
12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.
14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), this Court reiterated the law and held that:?
"15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 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."
15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
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.
7. In the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius)."
8. Upon due consideration of the grounds as also the law related to review petition, according to which the review is by no means an appeal in disguise and the scope of review is limited as also the judgment dated 23.05.2025, this Court finds no force in the present review petition for the reasons that while passing the judgment dated 23.05.2025 this Court considered the relevant statutory provision as also the facts pleaded in the petition thereafter passed the judgment dated 23.05.2025 and the same has not been disputed in the present review application and being so this Court finds no error apparent on the fact of record. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
October 28, 2025
Arun/-
