Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals filed by the plaintiff against a judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka. The plaintiffs had initiated a suit in 1981 for declaration of possession, which was decreed in their favor by the trial court on 25.9.1992. The defendants appealed the decision, but the High Court dismissed the appeal on merits on 7.4.1999. Following this, the plaintiffs' Execution Petition was allowed, and a warrant for delivery of possession was issued. Subsequently, the defendants filed a review application under Order LXVII Rule 1 in August 1999, which the High Court allowed, reversing its earlier findings. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misused its review power by re-evaluating evidence as if it were an appellate court, which is not allowed. The court noted that the findings regarding possession and land allotment were improperly altered in the review. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's order, stating that there would be no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Application - Misuse of Power - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order LXVII Rule 1 - The High Court allowed a review application that reversed findings made in a previous appeal, which is not permissible under the law. The court emphasized that the power of review is limited and should not be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Held that the appeals were to be allowed and the High Court's order set aside (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the review application and reversing findings in a manner not permissible under law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment and order, and stated there would be no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order LXVII Rule 1
- review application
- misuse of judicial power
- appellate jurisdiction
- miscarriage of justice
