Rajasthan High Court
Mukesh Agrawal S/O Shri Kishan Lal ... vs Nisha Singh W/O Shri Surendra ... on 10 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 100/2019
Mukesh Agrawal S/o Shri Kishan Lal Agrawal, R/o S-13A,
Mahaveer Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Nisha Singh W/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 45
Years, B/c Jat, R/o G-H-13, 1035, Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi.
2. Smt. Dhapu Devi W/o Rameshwar Lal, B/c Kumawat, R/o
Village Athmoriya Ki Dhani, Post Bagru, Tehsil Sangner,
District Jaipur.
3. Smt. Teeja Devi W/o Hanuman Sahai, B/c Kumawat, R/o
Village Athmoriya Ki Dhani, Post Bagru, Tehsil Sangner,
District Jaipur.
4. Smt. Soni Devi W/o Raju, B/c Kumawat, R/o Village
Athmoriya Ki Dhani, Post Bagru, Tehsil Sangner, District
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi, through
VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
10/01/2022
The petitioner has filed this present review petition seeking
review of the order dated 24.10.2018 passed by this Court in
S.B.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.518/2014, whereby the appeal
filed by the defendant-appellant Mukesh Agarwal was allowed and
the impugned order dated 24.10.2018 was quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abhimanyu Singh
Sirohi submits that the order dated 24.10.2018 has been passed
(2 of 3) [CRW-100/2019]
ex parte and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the
plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel further submits that even
otherwise on merits also this Court has wrongly applied the
proviso contained under Section 17 Clause (1A) of the Registration
Act 1908, while the aforesaid provisions are made applicable in
the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the
findings have been recorded by this Court in absence of the
registration of the agreement. The document in question does not
create any right in favour of the defendant. Hence, erroneous
findings have been recorded by this Court while allowing the
appeal filed by the defendant-appellant. Hence, the findings
recorded by this Court while deciding the appeal deserves to be
reviewed and set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and
perused the documents available on record.
It is a settled position of law that the jurisdiction and scope
of review is limited. The provisions of review can be invoked only
if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This Court
is of the view that unless and until the error is as such which
results in miscarriage of justice then and then only the review
petition can be entertained.
It is also the settled position of law that the review
proceedings are not the proceedings of the hearing of the appeal
and the same are confined to the scope and ambit of order 47
Rule 1 CPC.
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
(3 of 3) [CRW-100/2019]
error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to
exercise its power to 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 heard to be "reheard"
and "corrected".
A review petition cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise". The power of review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake not to substitute a view. Bare perusal of the order dated
24.10.2018 passed by this Court clearly indicates that there is no
error apparent on the face of the record. The present review
petition is beyond the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Consequently this review petition is dismissed.
However, in the interest of justice the trial Court is expected
to expedite the suit.
All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
