Ram Kour And Others vs Mohammad Sarwar Khan And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 300 j&K

                                                                    Supp. List-1
                                                                    Sr. No. 202

                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                            AT JAMMU

                                                 RPOWP No.4/2012


Ram Kour and Others                                              .....Petitioner(s)

                               Through :- None.

                         V/s

Mohammad Sarwar Khan and Others                                .....Respondent(s)

                               Through :- None.

Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

                          JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. Through the medium of this petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of

Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners seeks review of judgment/order impugned

dated 27.04.2012 passed by this Court in the writ petition bearing OWP

No.1324/2009, titled "Mohd. Sarwar Khan and Others Vs. Smt. Ram Kour and

Others", on the strength of averments made in it. The aforesaid petition was,

disposed of, on the joint request and with the consent of learned counsel for the

parties by providing that the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by Special Tribunal in

revision petition bearing STJ/280/04 shall remain subject to the final orders in the

Civil Suit pending before learned Subordinate Judge, Poonch.

2. It would be appropriate to reproduce the order under review

hereunder:

"On this Petition coming up for consideration, it was admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that a Civil suit between the parties seeking Redemption of Mortgage of the property in question was subjudice in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonch. They, therefore, jointly submitted that it would be in the

fitness of circumstances, if the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal's Order passed on November, 30, 2009 was ordered to remain subject to final orders in the Suit.

In view of the joint statement made by learned counsel for the parties, this Writ Petition needs no further consideration. It is, accordingly, disposed of by providing that the order passed by Special Tribunal in revision petition bearing STJ/280/04 on 30.11.2009 shall remain subject to the final orders in the Civil Suit pending before learned Subordinate Judge, Poonch."

3. From the bare perusal of the order under review it is apparent that the

writ petition was, disposed of, on the joint statement of learned counsel for the

parties made at the Bar and otherwise also, there is no error apparent on the face of

the record which requires reconsideration of the judgment and order under review.

For exercising the power under Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, the order

must have some imminent error, an error which would strike on mere looking at

the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the point

that may conceivably have two opinions. If such is not the case, it would amount to

Court arrogating itself to decide the case over and over again.

4. The legal position in this regard can be seen from the decision being

discussed hereafter. In Parsion Devi & Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. [(1997)8

SCC 715] in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held 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"."

5. In Asharafi Devi (D) Thr. Lrs. vs State Of U.P. (2019)5 SCC 86, the

Supreme Court has held that every error factual or legal cannot be the subject

matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The review jurisdiction is thus

not available to be exercised in the facts of the present case as this is not a case that

a fraud has been practised upon the Court to obtain a consent order nor is it a case

where the Court is misled by a party or a case where the Court itself has committed

mistake which prejudices a party.

6. Admittedly, the order under review is an order accepting the consent

of the parties. It is well settled in law that the consent decrees/orders are entitled to

create estoppel, which put an end to further litigation between the parties.

7. Before I conclude, I must express my anguish about how judicial time

is being wasted in deciding such frivolous review petitions wherein the review of

the consent order is sought.

I would also like to observe that it is admitted case of the petitioners

in the review petition that there was mistake on the part of the counsel of the

petitioner to the extent of giving consent for the order under review. Such an

averment is not acceptable as it would create confusion and chaos and parties

would be challenging the orders of the Court on the ground that the stand taken in

the previous litigation by it was a mistake. Such a practice is to be outrightly

discouraged. No one can go on contesting the litigation endlessly. Therefore, it is a

fit case where the review petition needs to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the review petition being wholly meritless and otherwise

also not maintainable, is dismissed.

(Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu 16.03.2021 Surinder

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

SURINDER KUMAR 2021.03.19 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document