[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Kamla Devi & Others ... vs Shri Jagdish Kumar on 19 March, 2026
Order Reserved on: 11.02.2026
Order Delivered on: 19.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
MCC No. 7 of 2026 (Review Application)
in
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022
Smt. Kamla Devi & others ......Petitioners
Versus
Shri Jagdish Kumar .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi and Mr. Hemant Singh Mahra, learned counsel for
Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Review Application (MCC No. 7/2026) has been
preferred by the review Applicants under Section 114 read with Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the
judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 469 of 2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
petitioners was dismissed and the concurrent findings recorded by the
Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority allowing the
release application of the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were affirmed.
2. The review applicants seek reconsideration of the aforesaid
judgment primarily on the ground that the judgment under review suffers
from an error apparent on the face of record. The principal contention
raised is with regard to interpretation of the first proviso to Section
1
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar
Ashish Naithani J.
21(1)(a) of the Act, and it is urged that issuance of six months' prior notice
by a subsequent purchaser-landlord is mandatory even after expiry of three
years from the date of purchase.
3. Learned counsel for the review applicants submits that this Court,
while deciding the writ petition, erred in holding that after expiry of the
three-year embargo contemplated under the proviso, no prior notice is
required. It is contended that the proviso comprises two independent
conditions, namely, (i) a moratorium of three years from the date of
purchase, and (ii) a mandatory requirement of six months' notice, and that
non-compliance thereof vitiates the release proceedings. Reliance has been
placed upon judicial precedents to contend that the requirement of notice
is mandatory in nature.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
issue sought to be raised in the present review stood fully considered and
decided in the judgment under review. It is argued that no error apparent
on the face of record has been demonstrated, nor has any new material
been brought on record. According to the respondent, the present
application merely seeks re-hearing of the writ petition on merits, which is
impermissible in review jurisdiction.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties on the
review application and perused the records. The principal ground urged in
the present review relates to interpretation of the first proviso to Section
21(1)(a) of the Act. The very same issue had been raised by the petitioners
in the writ proceedings and was examined in detail by this Court while
rendering the judgment dated 16.12.2025.
6. The Court had recorded the undisputed factual position that the
respondent purchased the property in the year 2000 and instituted the
release application in the year 2014, well beyond the statutory embargo of
three years. Upon consideration of the statutory scheme, this Court held
that once the embargo period stood exhausted, the subsequent purchaser-
2
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar
Ashish Naithani J.
landlord became entitled to invoke Section 21(1)(a) without the necessity
of a prior six months' notice.
7. The contention now advanced in review, namely, that the
requirement of six months' notice continues even after expiry of the three-
year period, is essentially a reiteration of the very argument which stood
considered and rejected in the judgment under review. The review
applicants have failed to demonstrate any patent or self-evident error in
the reasoning adopted by this Court. Interpretation of a statutory provision,
particularly where more than one view may be possible, is a debatable
issue and cannot be reopened in review jurisdiction.
8. The statutory framework and the legal position were examined in
the judgment under review, and this Court had recorded that no binding
precedent mandating a contrary interpretation had been shown.
Reconsideration of precedents at the stage of review would amount to
rehearing of the matter on merits, which lies outside the permissible scope
of review.
9. It is further evident that the present review application does not
disclose discovery of any new and important material which was not
within the knowledge of the applicants at the time of hearing of the writ
petition. No procedural illegality, jurisdictional error, or manifest injustice
has been demonstrated. The concurrent findings recorded by the
authorities below regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship were
affirmed in the writ proceedings, and no ground permissible in law has
been made out to reopen those findings in review.
10. The law is well settled that review cannot be used as a substitute
for an appeal, nor can it be invoked for the purpose of re-arguing the case
or seeking a fresh decision on the same grounds. The present application,
in substance, seeks reconsideration of issues already adjudicated, which is
impermissible in exercise of review jurisdiction.
ORDER
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar
Ashish Naithani J.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no error apparent on the face of record has been
made out warranting exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC. The Review Application (MCC No. 7 of 2026) in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 469 of 2022lacks merit.
The Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Ashish Naithani, J.
SB
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar
Ashish Naithani J.
