Case Note & Summary
The appellants, defendants in a suit for declaration and possession, challenged the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Sira, who allowed a review petition and modified the earlier appellate decree. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of ownership and possession of two properties. The trial court partly decreed the suit, declaring ownership of 'A' schedule property and granting injunction, but denied relief for 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which the appellate court allowed, setting aside the trial court's judgment regarding 'B' schedule property and decreeing the suit in full. The defendants appealed to the High Court under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the review was maintainable. The High Court examined the review order and found that the appellate court had re-appreciated the evidence and concluded that the plaintiff had proved his title, which did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court held that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to re-hear the matter. Since the appellate court's original judgment was a possible view, the review was without jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the review order, and restored the appellate court's original judgment dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The Appellate Court allowed a review petition and modified its earlier judgment, but the High Court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The review was based on a re-appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible. The High Court held that the review order was without jurisdiction and set it aside, restoring the original appellate judgment. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court admitted the second appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of the review petition. The court held that the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing its judgment without any error apparent on the record. (Paras 4, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to review its own judgment and decree in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record, and whether the review was permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the order dated 10.11.2011 in Review Petition No.1/2011, and restored the judgment and decree dated 14.1.2011 in R.A.No.28/2010.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Error apparent on face of record
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
