9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-10-1997 - A. S. Anand And S. Rajendra Babu,JJ. JUDGMENT This appeal by special leave calls in question an order passed by a single judge (G.D. Sharma, J.) of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir on 6.3.1997 in exercise of the review jurisdiction under order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The learned Judge upset the findings recorded on April 25, 1989 in Civil Revision No. 87 of 1987 by another single judge (K.K. Gupta, J.) of that Court. Shorn of details, brief facts necessary for disposal for this appeal are that on November 28, 1977 a suit, filed by the appellants, was decreed and an injunction was issued to the defendant-respondents to close down the passage carved out by opening a door from the wall and further the defendants were restrai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was an appeal. He also referred to the grounds of the review application and urged that on none of those grounds was the review of the order dated 25.4.1989 justified. Mr. M.L. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the Review Court had only set right the mistake committed by Gupta, J. by correct interpretation of the decree and the Act to the facts of the case and that exercise could not rightly with. He asserted that sharma, J. had rightly set aside the order of Gupta, J. dated 25.4.1989 and upheld the order of the Executing Court dated 6.5.1987. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions raised at the Bar. A perusal of the application filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent." A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an errneous decision is reheard corrected. but lies only for patent error." (Emphasis ours) Again, in Smt. Meera Bhanjia Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995 (1) SCC 170) while quoting with approval a passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Sharma Ors. (1979 (4) SCC 389), this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which not of such a nature, "Which had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract from the real import of the order passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review of the order of petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
