Case Note & Summary
The applicants (original appellants) filed a review application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of a judgment dated 28/4/2008 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992. The review was sought on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the finding of ownership of the non-applicants (original respondents) over the suit property, which allegedly resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The suit property was field No.6/1, area about 29 acres, situated at Mouza Dadapur, Tah. Warora, Distt. Chandrapur. The non-applicants had filed Regular Civil Suit No.144 of 1976 claiming ownership by virtue of a registered will executed in 1973 by Bharatsingh in their favour. They claimed that Meerabai was the legally wedded wife of Bharatsingh and Babulal was his son. The trial court decreed the suit, which was confirmed by the first appellate court and by the High Court in second appeal. The applicants argued that the will was not proved and that the finding of ownership was erroneous. The Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction, noting that it is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case. The Court found that the will was duly proved by examining the attesting witnesses and that the finding of ownership was based on evidence. The alleged error was not apparent on the face of the record. The Court also noted that the review application was filed after a delay of about 2 years and 6 months, but the delay was condoned. However, on merits, the Court found no ground for review and dismissed the application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The applicants sought review of a judgment in a second appeal, alleging an error in the finding regarding ownership of the suit property based on a will. The Court held that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case or substitute a different view. The alleged error was not apparent on the face of the record as the finding was based on evidence and the will was duly proved. (Paras 1-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 28/4/2008 in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992 warranting review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Final Decision
The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-argument of the case
- Section 114 CPC
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 147
Misc. Civil Application No. 56 of 2010 in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992(D)
Mr. S. S. Joshi for applicants, Mr. N. S. Badhe for non-applicants
Ramdulari w/o Matabadalsingh (Dead) and Subhadra w/o Maharajsingh (Dead) through LRs Dr. Kamalsingh, Mrs. Kiran Mithlani, Mrs. Anita Gulabrao Lokhande
Meerabai wd/o Bharatsingh Baghel (Dead) through LR Smt. Sharad w/o Sureshsingh Baghel and Babulal s/o Shivprasad Pande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review application against judgment in second appeal in a civil suit for declaration of ownership based on a will.
Remedy Sought
Review of judgment dated 28/4/2008 in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992.
Filing Reason
Alleged error apparent on the face of the record regarding finding of ownership of non-applicants.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed suit in favour of non-applicants; first appellate court confirmed; High Court dismissed second appeal on 28/4/2008.
Issues
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 28/4/2008 in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992 warranting review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that the finding of ownership of non-applicants was erroneous as the will was not proved and there was an error apparent on the face of the record.
Non-applicants argued that the will was duly proved and the finding was based on evidence, and review cannot be used to re-argue the case.
Ratio Decidendi
Review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require lengthy argument or reappraisal of evidence. The court cannot substitute its own view for the earlier view merely because another view is possible. The alleged error in the finding of ownership was not apparent on the face of the record as the will was duly proved and the finding was based on evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an application for review filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The review of judgment dated 28/4/2008 delivered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992 has been sought by the applicants on the ground that there has been an error apparent on the face of the record in recording a finding as regards ownership of the nonapplicants and that this finding has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Procedural History
Non-applicants filed Regular Civil Suit No.144 of 1976 for declaration of ownership based on a will. Trial court decreed suit. First appeal confirmed. Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992 was dismissed by High Court on 28/4/2008. Applicants filed Misc. Civil Application No. 56 of 2010 for review of that judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1
