(1) In this case, the High Court had allowed an application seeking review of its judgment which had contained some observations regarding possession of disputed property.
(2) 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.
(1) In appeal, SC discussed the scope and ambit of the Court's power under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Referring to various precedents in this regard, the court said:
“To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been elaborately discussed hereinabove. 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”
(2) The court observed that when the observation with respect to the possession of the plaintiff were made on appreciation of evidence/material on record, it cannot be said that there was an error apparent on the face of proceedings which were required to be reviewed in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(3) “It is required to be noted that there were necessary pleadings with respect to possession in the plaint as well as in the written statement. Even the parties also led the evidence on the possession”, the bench added.
CASE TITLE: SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) vs. VINOD KUMAR RAWAT
[CA NO.3601 OF 2020]
CORAM: Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah