Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Sohani Devi vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. ... on 2 April, 2025

Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2025:RJ-JD:16853]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 15/2024

                                            In

                     S.B. Civil Mis. Appeal No. 1806/2007

 Smt. Sohani Devi W/o Late Shri Mangilal Heda, Aged About 85
 Years, R/o. Pratapnagar, Chittorgarh (Raj.)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
 1.       Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Chittorgarh.
 2.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Acquisition Officer,
          Chittorgarh.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Narendra Thanvi
                                    Mr. Ashok Thanvi
                                    Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit
                                    Mr. Hardik Vyas
                                    Mr. Sourabh Rajpurohit



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

Order Reserved on 20/03/2025

Date of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

Reportable :

1- ;kph&vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk vUrxZr vkns'k 47 fu;e 01 lifBr /kkjk 151 lhihlh ds rgr is'k dj bl U;k;ky; ds S.B. Civil Misc Appeal No. 1806/2007, Smt. Sohani Devi Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & Anr. esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 04-04-2024 ij iqufoZpkj dj fofHkUu vuqrks"k fn;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA 2- la{ksi esa ekeys ds rF; bl izdkj ls gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] izrkix<+ }kjk eqr- nhokuh ¼38½ jsQjsal izdj.k la[;k 209@2002 o 100@2002 Jherh lksgunsoh oxSjk cuke Jh fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM o vU; esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 10-02-2006 ls O;fFkr gksdj bl U;k;ky; esa Jherh

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (2 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

lksguhnsoh }kjk S.B. Civil Misc Appeal No. 1806/2007 o eSllZ fgUnqLRkku ftad fyfeVsM fpÙkkSM+x<+ }kjk S.B. Civil Misc Appeal No. 775/2006 izLrqr dh xbZ] tks nksuksa vihyksa esa cgl lquh tkdj bl U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 04-04-2024 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr djrs gq, nksuksa vihyksa dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k o jsQjsal izdj.k la[;k 209@2002 o jsQjsal izdj.k la[;k 100@2002 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 10-02-2006 dh iqf"V dh xbZA 3- ;kph&vihykFkhZ Jherh lksguhnsoh dh vksj ls izLrqr iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 04-04-2024 esa vkS|ksfxd Hkwfe ds eqvkots lacaf/kr fu/kkZj.k ckcr~ foospu dj tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k] mls ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa dks vuns[kk djrs gq, ikfjr fd;k tkuk vafdr fd;k x;k o blds leFkZu esa rhu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k vkSj mi iath;d dh fjiksVZ o vkjkth la[;k 987 ds foØ; i= izn'kZ&31 ds ckjs esa mYys[k djrs gq, izn'kZ&31 dh Hkwfe gkbZos ls vanj gksuk crkrs gq, ,oa blds vk/kkj ij fd;s x;s fu/kkZj.k dks xyr crk;k o vU; U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, izfro"kZ 10 izfr'kr dh nj ls ewY; o`f) djus esa Hkwfe vkokfIr vf/kdkjh o v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk pqd gksuk crk;kA le>kSrk izn'kZ&4 ds laca/k esa Hkh fofHkUu mYys[k fd;s x;s vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 04-04-2024 ds iSjk la[;k 37] 39 o 40 esa vkS|ksfxd Hkwfe ds eqvkotk lacaf/kr fu/kkZj.k ckcr~ foospu dj tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] mls ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dks vuns[kk dj fn;k tkuk crk;k gSA dqa, ds eqvkots ds laca/k esa xokg ,-MCY;w- 3] ,-MCY;w-4 o ,-MCY;w-6 ds dFkuksa dh vksj /;ku vkdf"kZr djrs gq, vfHkopu fd;s x;s vkSj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar dk mYys[k fd;k x;kA 4- iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa bl U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; fnukad 04-04-2024 ds iSjk la[;k 78 ls 82 dk mYys[k djrs gq, ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar o fofHkUu mPp U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ;ksa dk o.kZu djrs gq, /kkjk 28 o 34 ds rgr izFke o"kZ 9 izfr'kr dh nj ls ,oa mlds mijkar Hkqxrku dh frfFk rd 15 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls izkfFkZ;k C;kt izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gksuk crk;k vkSj ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23 ds eqrkfcd gh Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk vokMZ tkjh x;k x;k] ijarq C;kt gsrq vokMZ tkjh ugha fd;k x;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vokMZ tkjh djus dh frfFk ls fu.kZ; dh fnukad rd 9 o"kZ gsrq 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt fnykus dk vokMZ tkjh fd;k x;k] tcfd /kkjk 28 ds fof/kd izko/kku ds vuqlkj izFke o"kZ 9 izfr'kr izfro"kZ ,oa 1 o"kZ

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (3 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

mijkar Hkqxrku dh frfFk rd 15 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls izkfFkZ;k C;kt izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gksus dk Hkh fuosnu fd;kA 5- iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd /kkjk 151 lhihlh ds rgr ,d vkosnu i= vihy esa izkFkhZ;k }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] tks C;kt dh jkf'k ds Hkqxrku djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds ckjs esa izkFkZuk i= dks vafre lquokbZ ds le; fuLrkfjr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk] ijarq izkFkZuk i= ij fdlh izdkj dk vkns'k ikfjr gksus ls jg x;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh vfrfjDr vokMZ jkf'k 1]22]925@&#i;s e; /kkjk 28 ds varxZr ns; C;kt dks vkt fnukad rd 18 o"kZ 1 ekg ls vf/kd le; mijkar Hkh izkFkhZ;k dks Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gS] tcfd U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 05-02-2008 dks fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM }kjk izLrqr LFkxu izkFkZuk i= ij fu.kZ; djrs gq, mls fujLr fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% bu vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk izLrqr dj fofHkUu vuqrks"k fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA 6- v;kph dh vksj ls iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk dk tokc is'k dj iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA 7- cgl iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk lquh xbZA 8- ;ksX; vf/koDrk ;kph dh vksj ls iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa of.kZr fd;s x;s vk/kkjksa dks nkSjkus cgl vius rdksZa ds :i esa izLrqr fd;k vkSj eq[; :i ls /kkjk 151 lhihlh ds izkFkZuk i= ¼vkod la[;k 1@18½ ds laca/k esa fnukad 02-08-2019 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds eqrkfcd bl izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k ugha fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k ds fu.kZ; esa iqufoZyksdu fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ vkSj bl izkFkZuk i= ds eqrkfcd /kkjk 28 o 34 ds rgr C;kt fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k iqufoZyksdu izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj djrs gq, ikfjr djus dk fuosnu fd;k rFkk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh vksj esjk /;ku vkdf"kZr djok;k x;k gS %&

1. 2004 AIR SCW 5534, Cement Corp. of India Ltd. Etc Etc. Vs. Purya & Others Etc. Etc.

2. 2001 AIR SCW 867, Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah.

3. 2005 AIR SCW 2107, Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (d) by Lrs Vs. State of Gujarat.

4. 2004 AIR SCW 75, V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R.

5. 2014 AIR SCW 6086, Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra And Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.

6. 2002 AIR SCW 1452, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Byda, Bangalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib.

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (4 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

7. AIR 2011 SC (SUPP) 625, Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) By Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra.

8. AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 707, Bhupender Ramdhan Panwar Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corp., Nagpur.

9. 2011 (11) SCC 648, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool District Vs. M Ramakrishna Reddy (D) by Lrs.

10. ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; Civil Appeal No. 10665/2010, M. Buggappa (D) Thro' LR & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer & Anr., Date of Judgment 13-12-2010.

11. AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 64, Chanabasappa Vs. Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd.

12. 2007 (9) SCC 650, Madishetti Bala Ramul (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer.

13. 2010 AIR SCW 4163, Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda and Ors.

14. AIR 2016 SC 1565, Balwan Singh Vs. Land Acquisition Collector.

15. 2014 (13) SCC 613, Tahera Khotoon Vs. Revenue, DIVL Officer/LAND Acquisition Officer.

16. ekuuh; cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh vkSjaxkckn ihB dk fu.kZ; First Appeal No. 01529/2018 With Connecting Appeals, The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Latur Vs. Shantabai, Date of Judgment 29-07-2019.

17. ekuuh; cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh vkSjaxkckn ihB dk fu.kZ; First Appeal No. 1250/2006 With Connecting Appeals, Dasrao S/o Yadavrao Marure Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Date of Judgment 07-04-2022.

18. ekuuh; cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh ukxiqj ihB dk fu.kZ; Writ Petition No. 4506/2011 With Connecting Writ Petition, Lalit Kumar Himmatlal Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Date of Judgment 10-05-2012.

19. ekuuh; fgekpy izns'k mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; RFA No 280/2010, Tha Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Shri Roshan Lal & Others, Date of Judgment 27-07-2018.

20. AIR 2016 BOMBAY 141, State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari.

21. ekuuh; xqtjkr mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; R/First Appeal No. 5845/2019 with Connecting Appeals, Pratapbhai Shamjibhai Vs. Second Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Order Dated 17-01-2020.

22. 2016 AIR SCW 5813, Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India.

23. 2010 AIR SCW 2067, K. Sharadarani Srinivas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

9- ;ksX; vf/koDrk v;kph dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd iqufoZyksdu izkFkZuk i= esa iwoZ ds fu.kZ; ij iqu% fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vfHkys[k ij fdlh Li"V Hkwy ;k =qfV ds dkj.k ;k fdlh vU; i;kZIr dkj.k ls

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (5 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dk iqufoZyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl ekeys esa tks vk/kkj iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa fy;s x;s gSa] mlesa iwoZ ds fu.kZ; dks ifjofrZr djrs gq, u;s fljs ls fu.kZ; fn;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ vkSj tgka rd /kkjk 151 lhihlh dk izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k ugha fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS] bl U;k;ky; }kjk vius vihyh; fu.kZ; esa fook|d la[;k 10 ds fuLrkj.k ds le; izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij fopkj dj fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftlesa fdlh izdkj dk iqufoZyksdu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA /kkjk 28 o 34 ds rgr C;kt fdlh izdkj ls ns; ugha gS] bl laca/k esa fook|d la[;k 10 dk;e dh xbZ Fkh] ftldk fu.kZ; U;k;ky; }kjk foLr`r fopkj dj fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k rFkk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk v;kph dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl ds lkFk fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gSa %&

1. (1997) 8 SCC 715, Parsion Devi & Others Vs. Sumitri Devi & Others.

2. (2023) 13 SCC 515, S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & Others.

3. (2022)17 SCC 255, S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Naryana Reddy & Others.

4. (2008) 8 SCC 612, State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr.

10- eSaus mi;qZDr rdksZa ij euu fd;k] izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA 11- loZizFke iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk ds laca/k esa fof/kd fLFkfr ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA ;ksX; vf/koDrk v;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr iwoZ esa of.kZr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar S. Murali Sundaram ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019) 20 SCC 753 o Shanti Conductors (p) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB (2020) 2 SCC

677 ij fopkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 16 yxk;r 18 esa /kkjk 114 lhihlh o vkns'k 47

fu;e 1 lhihlh ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj fof/kd fLFkfr Li"V dh xbZ gS %& "16. 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 Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 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 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (6 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

17. After considering a 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 up as under:

(Perry Kansagra case, SCC pp. 768-69, para 15.1) "15.1.'33...."...

(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 be 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." '(As observed in: Inderchand Jain v.

Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, p. 675, para 33)"

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.

18. In Shanti Conductors (P) Lid. V. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677, 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 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.

/kkjk 144 lhihlh o vkns'k 47 fu;e 1 lhihlh esa iqufoZyksdu dk nk;jk o miyC/k vk/kkjksa ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj izko/kku fd;k x;k gS %& "114 CPC Review. - Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;

(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC "1. Application for review of judgment.

- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (7 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

12- ;ksX; vf/koDrk v;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds iwoZ esa of.kZr fu.kZ; S. Madhusudhan Reddy okys ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa

izfrikfnr fl)karksa ij fopkj dj o iSjk la[;k 26 esa fuEukuqlkj mYys[k fd;k gS %&

26. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, this Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarised in the captioned case as below:

(SCC pp. 333-34, para 20)

"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v.Neki,1922 SCC OnLine PC 11, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42 to mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule'. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable-

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (8 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

13- vkns'k 47 fu;e 1 lhihlh o ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoZ esa of.kZr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ls ;g fof/kd fLFkfr Li"V gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk iqufoZyksdu djrs le; vihyh; U;k;ky; ds eqrkfcd fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj Lo;a ds }kjk Hkh bl izdkj ls fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk tSls izdj.k dk iqu% fuLrkj.k djuk gks] dsoy i=koyh ij Li"V fdlh Hkwy ;k =qfV ds dkj.k ;k fdlh vU; i;kZIr dkj.k ls iqufoZyksdu djuk U;k;ksfpr gks] ml voLFkk esa gh iqufoZyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gSA 14- mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa ;kph }kjk iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk ds ist la[;k 3 yxk;r 19 esa tks vk/kkj of.kZr fd;s x;s gSa] os bl izdkj ls gS fd bl U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fof/klEer ugha gS] =qfViw.kZ gS] tks vk/kkj vihyh; U;k;ky; esa fy;s tk ldrs gSa] bu vk/kkjksa ij fof/k ds lqLFkkfir fl)kar ds vuqlkj iqufoZyksdu dh izkFkZuk Lohdkj ugha dh tk ldrhA 15- tgka rd fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk iz'u gS] bu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k ij iqu% fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA bu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk gLrxr iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk ;kph vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 16- bl ekeys esa nkSjkus cgl eq[; :i ls /kkjk 151 lhihlh ds rgr izLrqr vkosnu i= ¼vkod la[;k 1@18½ dk fuLrkj.k ugha djus o vkosnu esa of.kZrkuqlkj /kkjk 28 o 34 ds vuqlkj C;kt ugha fnyk;s tkus ds laca/k esa vk/kkj fy;k x;k gS] bl laca/k esa fopkj fd;k x;kA 17- ;g lgh gS fd vihy dh i=koyh esa /kkjk 151 lhihlh dk vkosnu i= ¼vkod la[;k 1@18½ ekStwn gS] ftlds laca/k esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 02-08-2019 ds vkns'k ds eqrkfcd fuEukuqlkj vkns'k fn;k x;k %& Application no.1/18 field under Section 151 CPC and the prayer made therein is similar to the prayer made in the main appeal claiming interest therein.Thus, no purpose would be served in deciding the application separately.

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (9 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

The application shall be considered as part of the prayer made in the main appeal, which shall be decided at the time of deciding the appeal itself.

List on 27.08.2019.

18- mDr vkns'k ds eqrkfcd vkosnu esa tks vk/kkj fy;s x;s ogha vk/kkj vihy esa fy;s x;s gSa] ftudks vihy ds fuLrkj.k ds le; vihy ds vuqrks"k ds Hkkx ds :i esa fopkj dj vihy ds fuLrkj.k ds le; fuLrkfjr dj fn;k tk;sxkA 19- vihy ds fu.kZ; fnukafdr 04-04-2024 ij fopkj fd;k x;kA fu.kZ; ds ist la[;k 5 esa of.kZr vuqlkj fook|d la[;k 10 tks jsQjsal U;k;ky; }kjk dk;e fd;s x;s Fks] og fuEukuqlkj gS %& 10- vk;k mijksDr cktkj ewY; ds vykok 23¼vkbZ½, dk vfrfjDr cktkj ewY; 23¼2½ dk 30 izfr'kr lksys'ku ,oa fu;e 28 o 34 ds vuqlkj eqvkotk jkf'k ij dCtk ysus dh frfFk 28-1-89 ls C;kt dh jkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\

20- izkFkZuk i= esa tks /kkjk 28 o 34 ds vuqlkj dCtk ysus dh frfFk 28-01-1989 ls C;kt dh jkf'k fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS] mlds laca/k esa gh fook|d la[;k 10 iwoZ esa gh dk;e fd;k gqvk gSA bl laca/k esa fu.kZ; dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fook|d la[;k 10 ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ds iSjk la[;k 78 yxk;r 83 esa /kkjk 28 o 34 dh fof/kd fLFkfr ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj ftu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh vksj i{kdkjku }kjk /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k] mu ij fopkj djrs gq, /kkjk 28 o 34 ds eqrkfcd dksbZ C;kt iSuYVh ds :i esa izkIr djus ds vihykFkhZ lksguckbZ@lksgunsoh vf/kdkjh ugha gksuk ekurs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k 10 dk tks fu.kZ; fn;k x;k] ml fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh xbZA 21- iwoZ esa fd;s x;s foospu ds vuqlkj /kkjk 151 ds vkosnu i= esa tks vk/kkj fy;s x;s Fks] os gh vk/kkj vihy esa Hkh fy;s x;s Fks] mu ij fopkj dj fook|d la[;k 10 dk fu.kZ; bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk pqdk gSA ,slh lwjr esa vyx ls izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k dk dksbZ vkSfpR; gh ugha Fkk vkSj bl vk/kkj ij fd /kkjk 151 lhihlh ds izkFkZuk i= dk vyx ls fuLrkj.k ugha fd;k x;k] iqufoZyksdu dk vk/kkj ;kph dks izkIr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA 22- iqufoZyksdu ds izkFkZuk i= ds ist la[;k 23 o 24 esa tks vk/kkj fy;s x;s gSa] ml vk/kkj ls /kkjk 28 o 34 ds eqrkfcd fdlh izdkj dk C;kt fnyk;s tkus ds laca/k esa iqu% fopkj dj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk fof/klEer ugha gSA 23- ;kph&vihykFkhZ }kjk tks iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa vk/kkj izLrqr fd;s x;s o iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa tks vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gS] og vkns'k 47 fu;e 1 lhihlh ds izko/kku ds eqrkfcd ugha gksus ls iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk vk/kkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

[2025:RJ-JD:16853] (10 of 10) [CRW-15/2024]

24- vr% ;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk vUrxZr vkns'k 47 fu;e 1 lifBr /kkjk 151 lhihlh [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA 25- bl vkns'k dh ,d izfr fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks Hksth tk,A

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J 60-GauravG/-