Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Sultana Begum W/O Shri Haji ... vs Prem Chand S/O Late Shri Gappu Lal ... on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 152/2021
In
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.52/2020
Smt. Sultana Begum W/o Late Shri Haji Haider Bux, Aged About
74 Years, Resident Of House No. 3-Da-6, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Asha Jain W/o Shri Rajesh Jain, Resident Of E-3,
Gokhle Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Prem Chand S/o Late Shri Gappu Lal Jain, Pink City Hotel,
MI Road, since dead.
3. Smt. Sardara Devi W/o Late Shri Gappu Lal Jain, R/o E-3,
Gokhle Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) (Since Dead)
Through Legal Representative.
4. Shri Rajesh Jain S/o Late Shri Prem Chand Jain, Resident
Of E-3, Gokhle Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 157/2021
In
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.48/2020
Smt. Sultana Begum W/o Shri Haji Haider Bux, Aged About 74
Years, Resident Of House No. 3-Da-6, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Sardara Devi W/o Late Shri Gappu Lal Jain,
Resident Of E-3, Gokhle Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
(Since Dead).
2. Shri Rajesh Jain S/o Late Shri Prem Chand Jain,
Resident Of E-3, Gokhle Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Prem Chand S/o Late Shri Gappu Lal Jain, Pink City
Hotel, MI Road, (Since dead)
4. Smt. Asha Jain W/o Shri Rajesh Jain, Resident Of E-3,
(2 of 4) [WMAP-152/2021]
Gokhle Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 158/2021
In
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.50/2020
Smt. Sultana Begum W/o Shri Haji Haider Bux, Aged About 75
Years, Resident Of House No. 3-Da-6, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Prem Chand S/o Late Shri Gappu Lal Jain, Pink City
Hotel, MI road Since Dead Now Being Represented By
Following Legal Representatives.
2. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Late Shri Premchand Jain,
Resident Of E-3, Gokhle Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Smt. Hansa Godhawat W/o Shri Mukesh D/o Shri Prem
Chand Jain, Resident Of A 65, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Shri Rajesh Jain S/o Late Shri Prem Chand Jain,
Resident Of E-3, Gokhle Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Smt. Asha Jain W/o Shri Rajesh Jain, Resident Of E-3,
Gokhle Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Smt. Sardara Devi W/o Late Shri Gappu Lal Jain,
Resident Of E-3, Gokhle Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
(Since Dead).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramawtar Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
21/12/2021
(3 of 4) [WMAP-152/2021]
Since, the issue involved in all these miscellaneous
applications is common, they are being tagged and heard
together.
These applications under Sections 151 & 152 CPC have been
filed by the unsuccessful review petitioner in the order dated
17.08.2021 passed by this Court whereby, the review petitions
filed by the applicant were dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant has made two
fold submission in support of his prayer in the applications. Firstly,
he submitted that Explanation to Article 23 of Schedule 2 under
the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (for brevity "the
Act of 1952") was brought into effect from 18.05.1987 and not
from 18.09.2019 as mentioned in the order. His second
submission is that this Court erred in relying upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Thayyil Mammo & Ors.
versus Kottiath Ramunni & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 337 inasmuch
as therein, the document was registered one whereas, in the
present case, the Court was dealing with the unregistered
document. He, in support of his submission, relies upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Mohd. Akram
Ansari versus Chief Election Officer & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC
95.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
record.
The Explanation to Article 23 of Schedule 2 of the Act of
1952 was made effective from 18.05.1987 and not from
18.09.2019 as has erroneously been mentioned in the order dated
17.08.2021. Therefore, on page 3 of the order, the date of the
(4 of 4) [WMAP-152/2021]
implementation of the Explanation to Article 23 of Schedule 2 be
read as "18.05.1987" instead of "18.09.2019".
Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that since reliance placed by this Court on the judgment in case of
Thayyil Mammo (supra) is erroneous hence, the judgment dated
17.08.2021 be quashed and set aside, does not merit acceptance.
Under Section 152 CPC, a Court can correct only clerical or
arithmetical error in its judgments/orders. The review petitions
have been decided by this Court in the facts and circumstances of
the case in the backdrop of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of
India in case of Thayyil Mammo (supra) and even assuming it to
be erroneous, the same being beyond the scope of
clerical/arithmetical error as stipulated under Section 152 CPC, the
prayer cannot be entertained.
Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on
the judgment in case of Mohd. Akram Ansari (supra) is wholly
misconceived and misplaced. It nowhere deals with scope of
interference under Section 152 CPC.
Accordingly, the applications are allowed to the extent of
seeking correction in the date of implementation of the
Explanation to Article 23 of Schedule 2 of the Act of 1952 which
may be read as "18.05.1987" instead of "18.09.2019". Rest of the
prayer is rejected.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/14-16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
