Telangana High Court
Smt. Khaisar Sabiha vs Sri Yogesh Agarwal on 28 July, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION No. 01 OF 2020 IN CIVIL REVISION
PETITION No. 2516 of 2019
AND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.146 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Since the Review Petition No. 01 of 2020 in CRP No.2516
of 2019 and CRP No.146 of 2021 revolve around a common issue,
they were heard together.
2. The Review Petition under Order XLVII of Code of Civil
Procedure (for short 'CPC') is filed seeking review of the order
dated 17.02.2020 passed by this Court in CRP No.2516 of 2019.
3. Civil Revision Petition No.146 of 2021 is filed aggrieved by
docket order dated 07.01.2021 in I.A. No. 510 of 2018 in
I.A.No.208 of 2018 in O.S.No.387 of 2018 on the file VIII
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar.
4. The petitioner herein is petitioner in the Civil Revision
Petition vide CRP No.2516 of 2019.
5. The factual matrix of the case has been set out in detail in the
order under challenge. Thus, shorn of unnecessary details it is
sufficient to state that the petitioner herein had filed the underlying
petition aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by this
Court in CRP No. 2516 of 2019.
6. CRP No.2516 of 2019 was filed assailing the order of trial
Court and appellate Court by claiming that the Court below did not
consider the attachment of property under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A
CPC while setting aside the order of one-month civil prison; that
the Court did not consider the fact that there is no pleading or
finding in respect of the willful disobedience or breach of the trial
Court order holding her to be in breach of the order passed by the
trial Court.
7. This Court had disposed of the CRP No. 2516 of 2019 by
directing the petitioner to bring down the illegal construction made
in the suit schedule property after passing the injunction order
dated 02.05.2018 in I.A. No. 208 of 2018 to show her bonafide's
and tender unconditional apology within 30 days from the date of
receipt of the order, failing which the order dated 18.09.2019 in
C.M.A. No.70 of 2019 passed by the XIII Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the order dated
13.08.2018 in 1.A. No.510 of 2018 in I.A. No.208 of 2018 in O.S.
No.387 of 2018 shall stand affirmed and the petitioner shall be
detained in civil prison for a period of one month.
8. This Court while disposing the CRP by placing reliance on
the Advocate Commissioner's report and the trial Court's finding
in paragraph 8 of the injunction order, recording that construction
was at the pillar stage, had held that the trial Court has rightly
concluded that the petitioner continued construction despite the
injunction order dated 02.05.2018, and being restrained to proceed
with work pending disposal of the suit.
9. This Court further affirmed the trial Court's finding that the
petitioner had acted in violation of the said order and found no
grounds to interfere, and rejected the petitioner's claim of having
stopped construction on 01.05.2018, noting that such a plea was
disproved by the existence of a completed ground + five-storey
structure.
10. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the
order of this Court in CRP No.2516 of 2019
11. Civil Revision Petition No.146 of 2021 is filed aggrieved by
the warrant of arrest dated 07.01.2021 issued in pursuance to the
order passed in I.A. No.510 of 2018 in O.S. No. 387 of 2018
having been confirmed by this Court in CRP No.2516 of 2019.
12.The trial Court issued warrant of arrest against the respondent
for detention in civil imprisonment, for not complying the
directions issued even after giving sufficient time to comply the
same vide order dated 07.02.2020.
13.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondent and perused the record.
14. Petitioners in Review Petition contend that the trial Court and
appellate Court ought to have considered attachment of property
instead of ordering petitioner to be detained in civil prison for one
month under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
15. It is also contended that there is no pleading in the order of the
Court below there, as willful disobedience or breach of the Court
order and therefore the finding that the petitioner breached the
interim order is not correct. The petitioner further contended that
he requested the advocate that he would tender unconditional
apology and would hand over the building to plaintiff without
seeking any equity, in case of his success in the suit.
16.On the aforesaid ground the review of the order of this Court
vide CRP No.2516 is 2019 is sought.
17.The petitioner in CRP No.146 of 2021 contend that the warrant
of arrest issued under I.A.No.510 of 2018 in O.S. No.387 of 2018
is without jurisdiction, thereby seeking to set aside the order dated
07.01.2021 passed by the trial Court.
18. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
19. On behalf of the review petitioner it is contended that the
trial Court ought to have awaited for the outcome of the review
petition filed in CRP No.642 of 2020, before issuing the warrant of
arrest. However, the review petitioner cannot seek any indulgence
from this Court, as this Court had already passed a reasoned order
dated 17.02.2020, directing the demolition of the structures on the
suit property within 30 days.
20. Further, a perusal of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC shows that
review of a judgment or an order could be sought: (a) on discovery
of new and important matter or evidence whichever after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be
produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed
or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason.
21. In the present review petition the petitioner being aggrieved
by the judgment of this Court, sought to review the order of this
Court cannot be considered as the petitioner failed to prove the
claim of the petitioner having stopped the construction work on
01.05.2018 despite acting in disobedience of the injunction order
dated 02.05.2018 passed by the trial Court.
22. Further, the review petitioner herein did not answer as to
how the construction of ground + five floors came up on the suit
schedule property being contra to the advocate commissioners
finding over the suit schedule property. Thus, the review sought in
the underlying petition is entirely misconceived and this Court
cannot entertain the said review petition as it would exceed its
jurisdiction in allowing the review (See: Devaraju Pillai v.
Sellayya Pillai1).
23. It is also to be noted that the petitioner even by the present
review petition claims that she would hand over the property to the
plaintiff if he succeeds in the suit, which only goes to show that the
AIR 1987 SC 1160
petitioner herein has not learnt from her mistakes and on the other
hand is taking things for granted including the Courts without any
remorse for wrong committed. The said conduct of the petitioner
itself disentitles her from granting any relief.
24. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the
trial Court as well as appellate court instead of attaching the
property under first limb of Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC ought not
to have ordered for civil imprisonment. It is to be noted that it is
the discretion of the trial Court in the circumstances of the case
whether the first limb of the Rule 2A CPC is to be invoked or the
person who is alleged to have committed breach of its order is to be
sent for civil imprisonment.
25. In the facts of the present case as noted by this Court in order
dated 17.02.2020 in CRP. No.2516 of 2019 the petitioner had not
only aced in disobedience of the order of injunction granted by trial
Court but also persisted with her claim despite having purchased
the subject property which was subject matter of suit filed against
her vendor and he having lost the same, cannot set up any better
title for her to claim, that she would handover the suit schedule
property without claiming any equities of the plaintiff if the suit
succeeds.
26. Further, in a recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
has laid down the scope of review as under:
i. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record.
ii. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from
that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial
and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
iii. 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.
iv. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected".
v. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to
be "an appeal in disguise".
vi. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been
addressed and decided.
vii. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere
looking at the record should strike and it should not require any
long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
viii. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a
coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review,"
The order dated 17.02.2020, of which review is sought, does not
fall in any of the aforesaid categories laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
27. It is to be noted that, the review petition, by no means, is an
appeal in disguise and it cannot be entertained even if such
application has been filed for clarification, modification or review
of the order passed for the reason that a party cannot be permitted
to circumvent or bye-pass the procedure prescribed for hearing a
review application (See: Delhi Administration v. Gurdeep Singh
Uban2).
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers
(India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 3, has held as under:
8. It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a
judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a
rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is
that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure
from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a
substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do
so: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1965 SC 845 : (1965) 1
SCR 933, 948 : (1965) 1 SCJ 377] ... In a civil proceeding, an
application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in
Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal
proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the
record (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But
whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a
review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of
the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court
will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial
AIR 2000 SC 3737
(1980) 2 SCC 167
fallibility": Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC
674 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200 : (1975) 3 SCR 933] .
29. In the light of the foregoing discussion, there is no error
apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the said
order dated 17.02.2020 passed by this Court in in CRP No. 2516 of
2019. Accordingly, the review application fails and is hereby
dismissed.
30. Further, in so far CRP No. 146 of 2021, this Court is of the
considered view that the trial Court has rightly issued warrant of
arrest against respondent for detention in civil imprisonment upon
failure to comply the directions passed by this Court vide order
dated 17.02.2020 in CRP No.2516 of 2019.
31. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with
the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
32. Accordingly, review application No.01 of 2020 in CRP No.
2516 of 2019 and C.R.P No. 146 of 2021 are devoid of merit and
are dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________
Date: 28.07.2025 T. VINOD KUMAR, J
VSV/MRKR
