I Have Heard Learned Counsel For ... vs Laxminarayan & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3556 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
                     I.A. NO.1 OF 2023
                             IN
          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.551 OF 2017

ORDER:

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Raj

Kumar. No representation on behalf of the respondent.

2. This I.A. No.1 of 2023 in Civil Revision Petition is

filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff to review the orders passed by

this Court in C.R.P. No. 551 of 2017, dated 20.12.2022, on the

ground that orders passed by this Court sustaining orders

passed by trial Court with regard to admissibility of the

document dated 14.10.2009 in O.S.No.188 of 2013 basing on

the ratio laid down by this Court in two decisions are not

applicable.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that decisions

relied on by this Court in C.R.P. No. 551 of 2017 arose in

different situations as petition has been filed by the

respondent after marking the document to eschew the same, it

was allowed, whereas in the present case, no such petition has

been filed by the respondent and after dismissal of this Civil

Revision Petition, respondent filed petition to eschew the

document. He prays to review the order in C.R.P.No.551 of

2017, dated 20.12.2022.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by this Court in

C.R.P.No.551 of 2017 are not applicable to the facts of the

present case, as in the present case, trial Court though

marked the document in the presence of the counsel,

thereafter, another counsel came and objected and held that

document is liable for stamp duty and penalty, which orders

are against to the Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act. He would

further submit that the decisions followed by this Court in

C.R.P. No.551 of 2017, dated 20.12.2022 are not applicable to

the facts of the present case as in those cases, petition has

been filed for eschewing the document from consideration in

evidence, whereas in the present case, no such petition has

been filed but the trial Court after marking the document

decided its admissibility with regard to the stamp duty and

penalty which is not permissible under law. The learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that after disposal of

the C.R.P. No.551 of 2017, respondent filed petition before

trial Court to eschew EX-A1 from the evidence in O.S.No.188

of 2013. He prays to allow the petition.

5. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this

Court is:-

"Whether there are any grounds to review the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.551 of 2017, dated 20.12.2022?"

6. POINT:- Before going to the merits of the case, it

would be beneficial to quote Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil

Procedure 1908, which reads as under:

"Application for review of judgment:-

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order".

7. A perusal of the above referred provision, which

makes it clear that party can seek review of the order when it

appears that error committed on apparent on the record. In

the present case, petitioner is seeking to review the orders

passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.551 of 2017. On the ground

that the ratio laid down by this Court in two decisions referred

in the above Civil Revision Petition are not applicable to the

facts of the present case. The review of any order can be

allowed when discovery of new and important matters or

evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not within

the knowledge of the applicant or such important matter or

evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time

when the order was passed and on account of some mistake or

error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient

reason, he can seek for review.

8. In the present case, this Court after elaborately

discussing the nature of the document, which the petitioner

has propounded before the trial Court and also after following

the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Omprakash,

appellant Vs. Laxminarayan & Ors., respondents, 1 after

distinguishing phrase "marking" and "admission" came to

conclusion that Ex-A1 requires stamp duty and penalty,

thereby upheld the orders passed by the trial Court. This

Court has not passed orders in C.R.P. No.551 of 2017 only on

the basis of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Single Judges of

this Court in two decisions, which referred by the petitioner in

the grounds of revision. Therefore, this Court is of the

considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to seek review

of the order. There is no error apparent on the face of record

2014(1) SCC 618

in view of the detailed orders passed by this Court. There are

no grounds to review the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.

No.551 of 2017.

10. In the result, this Interlocutory Application in Civil

Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

____________________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

Date: 19.07.2023 MVK

Note:

CC by one week B/o MVK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

I.A. NO.1 OF 2023 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.551 OF 2017

Date: 19.07.2023

Note:

CC by one week B/o MVK