Rajasthan High Court

Rohit Chopra S/O R.B. Chopra vs Senior Regional Manager on 2 May, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:20572]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 33/2023

1.       Rohit Chopra S/o R.b. Chopra, Resident Of House No.
         98/39, Sector-03, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, Through His
         Power       Of     Attorney         Holder,        Surendra       Yadav     S/o
         Rameshwar Dayal, Resident Of Naspur, Tehsil Behror,
         District Alwar(Raj.).
2.       Dhillon Cement Private Limited, Behror Through Its
         Authorized Representative Surendra Yadav.
3.       Behror       Manufacturing              Company,             Behror     Through
         Surendra         Yadav      S/o      Rameshwar           Dayal,       Authorised
         Representative.
                                           ----Review Respondents/Appellants

Versus

1. Senior Regional Manager, Riico Limited, Epip, Neemrana, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

2. Managing Director, Riico Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

---Review Petitioners/Respondents

For Review : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Counsel Petitioner(s) with Mr. Rachit Sharma, Mr. Jai Lodha, Mr. Hanumant Singh and Mr. Ankit Rathore, Adv.

For Review                     :     Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv.
Respondent(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/05/2024

By way of this petition, review petitioners seek to review the

judgment dated 18.07.2023 by which this Court had allowed S.B.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.940/2023 preferred by review

respondents and while setting aside the judgment dated

09.02.2023 passed by the appellate court remanding the matter

[2024:RJ-JP:20572] (2 of 7) [CRW-33/2023]

to the trial court, the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2019

passed by the trial court was restored.

Learned senior counsel for the review petitioners submits

that the review respondents had filed a suit for mandatory and

permanent injunction against the review petitioners before the

trial court and the trial court vide judgment and decree dated

24.12.2019 decreed the suit filed by the review respondents. The

review petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Additional

District Judge No.1, Behror, District Alwar. The appellate court vide

judgment dated 09.02.2023 set aside the judgment and decree

dated 24.12.2019 passed by the trial court and remanded the

matter back to the trial court to decide the matter afresh after

taking the evidence of both the parties on additional issues framed

by the appellate court vide judgment dated 09.02.2023. The

review respondents had preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

by challenging the judgment dated 09.02.2023 passed by the

appellate Court.

Learned senior counsel for the review petitioners also

submits that this Court while allowing the appeal filed by the

review respondents had not considered certain facts which were

material for adjudication of the present appeal.

Learned senior counsel for the review petitioners also

submits that Dhillon Cement Pvt. Ltd. was closed and name of said

company was struck off in the Registrar of Companies, Chandigarh

in the year 2002. So, review respondent No.1-Rohit Chopra was

not holding the position of Director of Dhillon Cement Pvt. Ltd. So,

plot allotted could not be restored vide order dated 03.06.2014.

Review petitioners had no knowledge at that time. Learned senior

[2024:RJ-JP:20572] (3 of 7) [CRW-33/2023]

counsel for the review petitioners also submits that suit filed by

the review respondents was not maintainable but trial court had

not framed the issue on it. So, the appellate court remanded

matter to the trial court for fresh adjudication. Learned senior

counsel for the review petitioners also submits that demand draft

was submitted by Behror Manufacturing Company. The said

demand draft was returned by the review petitioners vide letter

dated 11.11.2014 because Behror Manufacturing Company was a

stranger in relation to the said plot. Review respondent No.1-Rohit

Chopra had not complied the restoration proceeding. So, the plot

so allotted was cancelled automatically. Learned senior counsel for

the review petitioners also submits that the suit was filed by Mr.

Surendra Yadav on behalf of the parties through power of attorney

and he was an unauthorized person but Civil Judge had not taken

into consideration these objections in consideration.

Learned senior counsel for the review petitioners further

submits that appeal of the appellants should be treated as second

appeal because question of law was involved in it. The appellate

court while remanding the matter rightly directed for fresh

adjudication after taking evidence of both the parties. So,

judgment of this Court be reviewed accordingly.

Learned senior counsel for the review petitioners has placed

reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Krystal Stone

Exports Limited Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial

Development & Ors. in D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.140/2021 decided on 11.03.2024; (2) Bhagyashree

Anant Gaonkar Vs. Narendra @ Nagesh Bharma Holkar &

Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688; (3) Board of Control

[2024:RJ-JP:20572] (4 of 7) [CRW-33/2023]

For Cricket in India & Anr. in Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.

reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741; (4) Narayanan Vs. Kumaran &

Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 26 and (5) Sardul Singh Vs.

Pritam Singh & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 522.

Learned counsel for the review respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the review

petitioners and submits that by way of review, review petitioners

want to put a new case which was never pleaded before the lower

court. Learned counsel for the review respondents also submits

that this Court cannot sit as an appellate court by way of review.

Learned counsel for the review respondents also submits that

Rohit Chopra and Punit Chopra had executed a partnership in the

name of Behror Manufacturing Company. So, it cannot be said that

Behror Manufacturing Company had no concerned with Rohit

Chopra. Learned counsel for the review respondents also submits

that as per the record, under Disposal of Land Rules 1979, RIICO

can transfer the plot. So, review petition being devoid of merit, is

liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior

counsel for the review petitioners as well as learned counsel for

the review respondents.

The Apex Court in the case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs.

Jothibai Kannan & Ors. reported in 2023 SC Online SC 185

(para Nos.15, 16, 17 and 21), has held as under:-

"15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a

[2024:RJ-JP:20572] (5 of 7) [CRW-33/2023]

rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:

"(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions.

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."

16. It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.

17. In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra), it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

[2024:RJ-JP:20572] (6 of 7) [CRW-33/2023]

21. From the aforesaid it appears that the High Court has considered the review application as if it was an appeal against the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010. As observed hereinabove the same is wholly impermissible while deciding the review application. Even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous the same cannot be a ground to review the same in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."

The Apex Court in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs.

V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC

1034 (para No.31), has held as under:-

"31.As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason".

The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer: Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram17 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others18)"

[2024:RJ-JP:20572] (7 of 7) [CRW-33/2023]

Review petitioners had not taken these objections in their

written statement. Witness of review petitioners who gave the

evidence before the trial court, had gave evasive reply during the

cross-examination. The appellate court while deciding the first

appeal wrongly remanded matter to the trial court for fresh

adjudication after taking evidence of both the parties on additional

issues framed by it in its judgment, which are not relevant and not

raised by the review petitioners in the written statement.

Contention of the review petitioners are that remand order

falls within the purview of second appeal is not tenable because

case rests on factual aspect. No substantial question of law is

made out. Argument regarding substantial question of law was

never raised by the then counsel of review petitioners during the

arguments of appeal. By way of review petition, review petitioners

want to create a new case. It is a settled proposition of law that

by way of review petition, a new case cannot be set up.

It is also settled proposition of law that this Court cannot sit

as an appellate court on its own order. So, review petition filed by

the review petitioners being devoid of merit, is liable to be

dismissed, which stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to

be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority,

Jaipur within four weeks from today.