9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Review jurisdiction of the High Court in setting aside its earlier decision. 2. Entitlement to partition and separate possession of C.S. Plot No. 74. Summary: Issue 1: Review Jurisdiction of the High Court This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution questions the High Court's review jurisdiction in setting aside its earlier decision in Second Appeal No. 569 of 1973. The appellant, the original plaintiff, had filed Title Suit No. 67 of 1970 seeking partition and separate possession of C.S. Plot Nos. 73 and 74. The trial court granted partition for Plot No. 73 and a declaration of title for Plot No. 74. The appellate court confirmed this decision. However, the High Court in second appeal allowed partition for Plot No. 74 as well. The respondent filed a review petition u/r 47, Rule 1 CPC, which was partly allowed, setting aside the partition decree for Plot No. 74. The appellant challenged this review decision. Issue 2: Entitlement to Partition and Separate Possession of C.S. Plot No. 74 The appellant argued that the Review Bench overstepped its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and effectively sitting in appeal over the earlier Division Bench's decision. The Supreme Court noted that review proceedings are not an appeal and must be confined to the scope of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that review power is limited to correcting apparent errors on the face of the record and not for re-evaluating evidence or correcting erroneous decisions on merits. The Supreme Court found that the Review Bench had indeed overstepped its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and reversing the earlier Division Bench's findings. The Review Bench's approach was beyond the scope of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, as it involved a detailed re-evaluation of evidence rather than identifying an apparent error. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the review judgment dated 5-9-1984 and the subsequent decision dated 8-7-1986, and restored the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 3-8-1978, which allowed the second appeal regarding C.S. Plot No. 74. Conclusion: The appeal is allowed, and the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 3-8-1978 is restored. There will be no order as to costs.
|
