Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Sanjay Kumar And Others on 7 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066190
128.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-7579
7579-CII-2024 IN/AND
RA-CR
CR-64-2024 IN
CR-4057
4057-2023
Date of decision: 07.05.2024
Suresh Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Kumar and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Sourabh Saini, Advocate and
Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate,
for the applicant-petitioner.
----
GURBIR SINGH,
SINGH J.
CM-7579-CII
CII-2024
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation
Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the review
application.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed
and delay of 19 days in filing
filing the review application is condoned.
RA-CR-64--2024
1. Present application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section
114 CPC has been filed by the petitioner for review of judgment dated
24.07.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.4057 of 2023.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066190
CM-7579-CII-2024 IN/AND RA-CR-64-2024 IN
2. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
applicant-petitioner and have gone through the application.
3. By way of present application, petitioner wants review of the
points which have already been dealt with by this Court in its judgment
dated 24.07.2023.
3.1 In case S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan and
others, 2023(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 111, Hon'ble Apex Court has explained that
the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is
limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. An
error which is not self-evident 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 to review.
3.2 In case Arun Dev Upadhyaya Versus Integrated Sales Service
Ltd. and another, 2023(8) SCC 11, it has been held that power to review
cannot be exercised as appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the
scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Error on face of record must be
such error which on mere looking at the record should strike and it should
not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
3.3 In case Anmol Singh Nayar Versus State of Haryana and
others, 2023(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 565, a Division Bench of this Court has held
that power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is very limited and it may
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066190
CM-7579-CII-2024 IN/AND RA-CR-64-2024 IN
be exercised only if there is mistake or error apparent on face of record.
Such application for review cannot be decided like regular intra court
appeal.
3.4 In case Soma Jassal Versus Dhilpreet Singh Gill and others,
2022(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 776, this Court has held that if there is no mistake
apparent on face of record, review of judgment on the basis of new
evidence will be illegal and without jurisdiction.
3.5 The applicant-petitioner herein failed to show illegality in the
judgment passed by the trial Court. Moreover, the question that the decree
dated 06.03.1986 has been obtained on the basis of fraud and the question
whether revenue authorities can change mutation after 32 years without
giving notice, were held to be triable issues and in order to preserve suit
property, it has been further held that alienation or transfer of suit property
in any manner would lead multiplicity of proceedings. Para Nos.8 and 9 of
judgment dated 24.07.2023 read as under:-
"8. The civil suit filed by plaintiffs against defendant no.12
was decreed on 06.03.1986 bearing Civil Suit No.161 of 1986
titled as Suresh Kumar and others vs. Fateh Chand. Mutation
no.1095 was sanctioned. As per contentions of the plaintiff, in
the alleged family settlement, 1/5th share each was given to
the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 4 and the same was also
incorporated in the revenue records. After 32 years, said
mutation was cancelled and mutation no.1839 was sanctioned
on 19.07.2018 without issuing notice to the affected parties
and without any order passed by any competent Court of law.
In the earlier suit, property was comprised in khasra nos.209/1
and 209/3. Khasra no.209/2 was not part of the said property.
9. The plea of the plaintiff in the case is that the site plan
annexed with the plaint of Civil Suit No.161 of 1986, decreed
on 06.03.1986, was obtained by fraud and the site plan
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066190
CM-7579-CII-2024 IN/AND RA-CR-64-2024 IN
prepared by the Authorities was not as per the spot. The same
was wrongly furnished with the said case. So, question of
fraud is required to be proved by way of evidence. Whether,
after 32 years of sanctioning of mutation, the Revenue
Authorities, without giving notice to the effected parties, can
again sanction the mutation, all these are triable issues and the
suit property is required to be preserved and further alienation
or transfer of suit property in any manner would lead to
multiplicity of proceedings. In case Maharwal Khewaji
Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass reported as (2004) 8
Supreme Court Cases 488, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court
that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is
made out by a party to the suit, the Court should not permit
that nature of the property being changed which also includes
alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or
damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed
and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings."
4. There is no error apparent on the face of record. When there is
no such error, the power under review cannot be exercised. Thus, I do not
find any illegality in the judgment dated 24.07.2023 passed by this Court in
Civil Revision No.4057 of 2023. The review application is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(GURBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
May 07, 2024
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
