Listen to this articleShri Ram Sahu (dead) through Lrs. & Ors.
V. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3601 OF 2020 decided
on 3rd November,2020
Bench:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH JJ.
Facts:
The
petitioner in the present case approached the Supreme Court against an order
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High
Court allowed an application seeking review of its judgment which had contained
some observations regarding possession of disputed property. The High Court
allowed the review petition observing that as regards the possession of the
disputed property the issue of possession was neither raised before the Trial
Court nor before the First Appellate Court and even no issue with respect to
possession was framed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner
filed this appeal in Supreme Court.
Issue:
The Supreme
Court considered the following issue:
1. Whether the
High Court was justified in allowing review in exercise of powers under Section
114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Arguments:
|
Appellant
|
Respondent
|
|
The Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that: 1. While assailing the impugned order passed
by the High Court passed in the review application, High Court had exceeded
its jurisdiction while exercising the review jurisdiction and has acted beyond
the scope and ambit of the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Hence, the court ought not to have set aside the specific finding given with
respect to possession, which finding was based on appreciation of evidence
before the learned trial court. 2. Furthermore, the High Court
committed grave error in deleting para 20 of the final judgement passed in
2014 in the first Appeal in exercise of its review jurisdiction in as much
as, as such, there was no error apparent on the face of the record, which was
required to be corrected. |
The learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that: 1. While opposing the
submissions of respondent submitted that in facts and circumstances of the
case the High Court has not committed an error in deleting para 20 of the
judgement dated in 2013 passed in the first appeal while exercising review jurisdiction.
2. No
injunction was sought and only injunction against further transfer was sought
no issue was framed in respect of possession. It is therefore contended that,
in absence of any specific issue framed by the Learned Trial Court in respect
of possession of the property and when the suit was dismissed and even
thereafter the appeal also came to be dismissed. Thus, the court had an
inherent power to correct the error subsequently. |
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the powers of review
under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
cannot be exercised as an inherent power or an appellate power.
The court observed that
the word review implies an act of looking, offer something again with a view to
correction. The court remarked that it cannot be denied that review is a
creation of statute. The court relying on various case laws held that the power
of review is not an inherent power. It must either be conferred by law either
specifically or by necessary implication.
The
court elaborated the scope of Section 114 of CPC and held that an order can be
reviewed by a court only on the prescribed mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An
Application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the court
of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order
47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent
power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of
review.
The
Supreme Court held that the High Court had clearly overstepped the jurisdiction
vested in the provision and had erred in deleting para 20 in exercise of power
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The court held that the High Court committed a grave
error and the impugned order is unsustainable. Thus, court ordered to set aside
the order and quash it.