Case Note & Summary
The applicants, original petitioners in Writ Petition No.288/2024, filed a review application (Civil Application (Review) No.10/2026) before the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking review of an order dated 19.03.2024. That order had dismissed their writ petition and upheld the trial court's order dated 20.01.2024 allowing Respondent No.14 (the sister/sister-in-law) to be impleaded as a defendant in Partition Suit No.08/2019 pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division at Ponda, Goa. The suit was filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 7 (original plaintiffs) for partition of joint family property. The applicants, along with Respondent Nos.8 to 13, were original defendants in the suit. The applicants contended that the order of 19.03.2024 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record because it was contrary to Section 97 read with Section 2(2) and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). They argued that once a preliminary decree of partition has attained finality, no party can seek to challenge a final decree based on it, and allowing impleadment after the final decree would be impermissible. The court examined the grounds of review and noted that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not to re-argue the case. The court found that no preliminary decree had been passed in the suit; the suit was still at the stage of evidence. Therefore, the contention that the impleadment would affect the finality of a preliminary decree was premature and not an error apparent. The court also held that Respondent No.14, being a sister/sister-in-law, had a legitimate interest in the property and was entitled to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court concluded that the review application lacked merit and dismissed it, confirming the earlier order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Review is not an appeal in disguise; an error apparent must be self-evident without lengthy reasoning. The court held that the alleged error regarding finality of preliminary decree was not apparent as no preliminary decree had been passed in the suit. (Paras 1-5) B) Partition Suit - Impleadment - Preliminary Decree - Section 97, Section 2(2), Section 96 CPC - The contention that impleadment after final decree is barred under Section 97 is misplaced when no preliminary decree has been passed. The court held that impleadment at the stage of suit does not affect the finality of any decree. (Paras 6-10) C) Civil Procedure - Impleadment - Necessary Party - Order I Rule 10 CPC - A person who claims interest in the subject matter of the suit is entitled to be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court held that the sister/sister-in-law (Respondent No.14) had a legitimate claim to be heard in the partition suit. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 19.03.2024 dismissing the writ petition and upholding the trial court's order allowing impleadment of Respondent No.14 in the partition suit suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly in light of the provisions of Section 97 read with Section 2(2) and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The review application is dismissed. The order dated 19.03.2024 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Impleadment in partition suit
- Preliminary decree
- Final decree
- Section 97 CPC
- Section 2(2) CPC
- Section 96 CPC
- Order I Rule 10 CPC
