Smt. Satyawati Yadav(Wrongly ... vs Munnalal Agrawal
2022 Latest Caselaw 4678 Chatt

                                            1

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       REVIEW PETITION No. 45 of 2022
      Smt. Satyawati Yadav (Wrongly Mentioned As Saraswati Yadav)
       W/o Narayan Yadav, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 15 (New
       Ward No. 27) Kawardha Tehsil And District Kabirdham (C.G.)
                          ---- Applicant/Judgment Debtor (Defendant No.2)
                                        Versus
     1. Munnalal Agrawal S/o Chaganlal Agrawal Aged About 39 Years
        Occupation Hotel Business R/o Ward No. 13 Kali Ward, Kawardha,
        District Kabirdham (C.G.) (Plaintiff/Decree Holder)
     2. Smt. Shobhna Choudhary D/o Late Shri (Dr.) Sushil Kumar
        Chourasiya, R/o E-2, 314 Arora Colony, Bhopal District Bhopal
        (M.P.) (Def.No.1/Judgment Debtor)
                                                                ---- Non-applicants
 ___________________________________________________________
For Petitioner                  :       Shri S.N.Nande along with
                                        Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 22.07.2022

1. This Review Petition has been filed by the judgment debtor/

Defendant 2- Smt. Satyawati Yadav questioning the legality and propriety

of the judgment and decree, dated 17.03.2021 passed by this Court in

First Appeal No.03/2011, whereby, the Plaintiff's claim (decree holder) for

Specific Performance of Contract has been decreed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the

property in question mentioned in the alleged agreement to sale dated

26.12.2001, marked as Ex. P-1, was a part of a Nazul Plot bearing No.12,

Sheet No.17 and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree as

passed even without impleading the State of Chhattisgarh as a party

Respondent is liable to be reviewed. In support, he placed his reliance

upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Lily

Thomas and others vs. Union of India and others, Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock

Exchange Limited and Board of Control For Cricket in India and

another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC

224, (2008) 14 SCC 171 & (2005) 4 SCC 741 respectively. He also

placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Madhya Pradesh

High Court in the matter of Principal Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. &

S.T. vs. M.S.S. Foods Processors reported in (2017) 7 GSTL 394.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for Specific

Performance of Contract was instituted by the Plaintiff/Decree-holder,

namely, Munnalal Agrawal based upon an agreement to sale dated

26.12.2001, purported to have been executed in his favour by one Smt.

Shobhna Chourasiya (wrongly mentioned in the memo of petition as

Smt.Shobhna Choudhary), who was impleaded as Defendant No.1 in the

suit. According to the Plaintiff, she (Smt. Shobhna Chourasiya) had

agreed to alienate the suit property at the rate of Rs.350/- per square feet

for a total consideration of Rs.1,59,110/- upon receiving the earnest

amount of Rs.20,000/- from him. Further contention of the Plaintiff is that

since the land in question was occupied by the tenant, therefore, a

condition was stipulated therein by which, it was got to be vacated by said

Defendant within the period of 6 months and a sale deed was to be

registered thereafter within the period of 7 days from the date of receiving

the information in this regard. When no action was taken by the said

Defendant, despite repeated requests being made by the Plaintiff, a suit

for Specific Performance of Contract was instituted and that by way of

amendment, present Petitioner, who was the wife of a tenant Narayan

Yadav, was impleaded as a party Defendant as she purchased the land in

question during the pendency of the suit under the registered deed of

sale dated 31.03.2004.

4. While contesting the claim, it was pleaded by Defendant No. 1-

Smt. Shobhna Chourasiya that the property in question was, however,

agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. ft. and not at the rate of

Rs.350/- per sq. ft. as alleged in the plaint. The present Petitioner, who

was impleaded during the pendency of suit as Defendant No. 2, had

contested the claim mainly on the ground that since she had acquired

valid right, title and interest over the land in question by virtue of a

registered deed of sale, dated 31.03.2004 and as she was not aware

regarding the execution of the alleged agreement to sale dated

26.12.2001 (Ex. P-1), therefore, she was a bonafide purchaser and the

suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

5. What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid pleadings of the

parties that a suit for Specific Performance of Contract was instituted

based upon the alleged agreement to sale dated 26.12.2001(Ex.P-1) with

a plea that it was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. ft.

though the rate of it was disputed by its vendor. In so far as the defence

of the present Petitioner was concerned, it was contested with a plea that

since she was a bonafide purchaser without having the knowledge of

alleged agreement to sale, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

It, thus, appears that the contention of the present Petitioner as alleged

herein for the first time was not her defence, nor was even the defence of

Defendant No.1, therefore, in absence of such a plea, the reliance of the

learned counsel for the Petitioner, as mentioned herein above, would not

be of any use. Besides, it is to be noted here that a Special Leave

Petition being S.L.P. (Civil) No(s). 19530-19531/2021 preferred by the

Petitioner against the impugned judgment has already been dismissed

vide order dated 06.12.2021.

6. In view of above and particularly when there was no mistake or

error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment impugned dated

17.03.2021 passed by this Court in Fist Appeal No.03/2011 cannot be

reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of

Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others reported in

(1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein it has been held at para 9 which is relevant

for the purpose reads as under :

"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".

7. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, vis-a-

vis, the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, as observed herein

above, I do not find any mistake or error in the judgment impugned so as

to call for any interference in this review jurisdiction.

8. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

                                             (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
sunita                                            JUDGE