Patna High Court
Radha Krishna PrasadversusRam Bilash Prasad
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The review petition is dismissed because it fails to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any new, important evidence within the limited scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Summary
The petitioner filed a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the High Court’s dismissal of his specific performance suit. He claimed the 25‑January‑2002 agreement for sale was valid and that the original 18‑September‑2001 deed, allegedly in the defendant’s custody, proved the earlier judgment was erroneous. The court examined the limited scope of civil review, noting that a review cannot re‑appreciate evidence unless there is a manifest error or new, important evidence. The supplementary affidavit showing the deed’s custody was held insufficient to overturn the earlier factual findings. Consequently, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition at the admission stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the review petition is maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence
- Whether the agreement dated 25‑January‑2002 is a valid contract for specific performance
- Whether the custody of the original deed dated 18‑September‑2001 by the defendant affects the earlier judgment
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLVII Rule 1, Section 114
Subjects
- specific performance
- agreement for sale
- civil review
- Order XLVII Rule 1
- error apparent on record
- Code of Civil Procedure
- new evidence
- deed custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.344 of 2024
In
FIRST APPEAL No.15 of 2008
======================================================
Radha Krishna Prasad son of Sri Shivnandan Prasad resident of village-
Mirachak, P.O. Bind, P.S. Asthawan, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Ram Bilash Prasad son of Sri Ram Prasad Singh Yadav resident of village-
Chaudhary Tola, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanaganj, District- Patna at present
residing at village- Kanauji, P.S. Gaurichak, P.O. Manoharpur Kahuara,
District- Patna.
2. Kundan Kumar son of Ram Bilas Prasad resident of village- Chaudhary
Tole, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanaganj, District- Patna at present residing at
village- Kanauji, P.S. Gaurichak, P.O. Manoharpur Kahuara, District- Patna.
3. Chandan Kumar son of Ram Bilas Prasad resident of village- Chaudhary
Tole, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanaganj, District- Patna at present residing at
village- Kanauji, P.S. Gaurichak, P.O. Manoharpur Kahuara, District- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 30-01-2026
1. This review application has been filed under
Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) against the judgment dated
21.10.2024 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.15 of 2008
(hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) whereby the
appeal preferred by the review petitioner/appellant was
dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007
passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.35 of 2004
filed by the review petitioner/appellant.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
2/10
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. It appears from the record that the review
petitioner/appellant filed the suit for specific performance of
contract for sale on the basis of agreement for sale dated
25.01.2002 claiming that defendants/respondents failed to
comply the terms of the said contract and avoided the execution
and registration of sale deed, while the plaintiff
(petitioner/appellant) was always willing and ready to perform
his part of contract to pay the balance consideration of money.
As per the defendants, defendant no.1 had received Rs.60,000/-
as advance from plaintiff and executed an agreement for sale
dated 18.09.2001 in his favour for a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/-.
The said agreement was prepared in duplicate, one copy
remained with plaintiff and one copy with defendant. The
further case of the defendant is that he signed the document
dated 25.01.2002 for extension of period believing the words of
plaintiff and he had not received any amount of Rs.60,000/- as
advance from the plaintiff.
4. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit
bearing Title Suit No.35 of 2004 on contest filed by
petitioner/appellant/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated
29.11.2007 wherein it was held that the agreement for sale of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
3/10
the suit land between the parties was executed on 18.09.2001
after receiving Rs.60,000/- as advance amount, for consideration
amount of Rs.2,70,000/- for two kattha i.e. at the rate of
Rs.1,35,000/- per kattha and alleged agreement of sale dated
25.01.2002 was indirectly extension of time period of the
agreement of sale dated 18.09.2001 which was done taking trust
under the circumstances whereby inserting the less rate of
agreed consideration amount and accordingly, the agreement of
sale dated 25.01.2002 is not a valid and legal document.
5. The First Appeal No.15 of 2008 filed by the
petitioners herein has been dismissed by this Court vide
judgment dated 21.10.2024. Upon perusal of judgment of the
learned Trial Court, considering facts and circumstances of the
case and materials available on record, this Court upheld the
judgment of the learned Trial Court that the agreement of sale
(Bai Beyana) with respect to suit land was executed by
defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 18.09.2001 in which
consideration amount with respect to the suit land was
Rs.1,35,000/- per kattha. It was observed by this Court that the
petitioner herein was not entitled to get the decree of specific
performance on the basis of alleged agreement of sale dated
25.01.2002 and accordingly, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
4/10
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned judgment suffers from error apparent on the face
of the record and has been passed with material irregularity in
exercise of its jurisdiction. Learned counsel assailed the finding
recorded by this Court in the First Appeal to the effect that the
learned Trial Court had rightly held the agreement for sale dated
18.09.2001, fixing the consideration at Rs.1,35,000/- per kattha
and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific
performance on the basis of the agreement dated 25.01.2002. It
is submitted that the said finding suffers from an error apparent
on the face of the record inasmuch as this Court proceeded on
the erroneous premise that the agreement for sale dated
25.01.2002 on which the plaintiff case is based is not a valid and
enforceable document and the original agreement for sale dated
18.09.2001 is a valid document.
7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on
behalf of petitioner in this Review Application to bring on
record a copy of “List of Document produced by the accused
(defendant/respondent no.1) on 16.09.2004 in Complaint Case
No.291(c) of 2003” to show that original copy of Bai Beyana
deed dated 18.09.2001 was in custody of defendant no.1 and
falsify the case of defendant no.1 that he executed Bai Beyana
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
5/10
deed on 18.09.2001 in favour of plaintiff and handed over the
original copy of the same to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has further submitted that the original copy of
alleged Bai Beyana deed dated 18.09.2001 was never given to
the plaintiff and the same is false and fabricated by defendant
no.1 and the plaintiff has not concealed the fact regarding the
previous agreement to sell. He has further submitted that the
finding in para 36 of the judgment with respect to concealment
of fact regarding the previous agreement to sell is apparently an
error on the face of record. Learned counsel further submitted
that non-consideration of this crucial circumstance has
materially affected the finding recorded in the impugned
judgment and, therefore, the present case squarely falls within
the permissible parameters of review.
8. Before examining the grounds submitted in the
review petition, it is apposite to reiterate the settled legal
position that the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the C.P.C. is extremely limited, and that a review court does not
sit in appeal over its own judgment, nor can it re-appreciate
evidence or correct an alleged erroneous decision on merits,
unless the error complained of is manifest, patent, and apparent
on the face of the record. A judgment may be reviewed only on
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
6/10
discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malleeswari v.
K. Suguna & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927 has
vividly enumerated the scope of civil review under Order XLVII
Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the C.P.C. as herein under:
“15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal
cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred
by the statute or the rules having the force of a
statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be
assumed unless it is conferred by law on the
authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order
47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review
of the courts. The power of review is different
from appellate power and is subject to the
following limitations to maintain the finality of
judicial decisions:
15.1 The review proceedings are not by way
of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be confused with
appellate powers, which may enable an
appellate court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the subordinate court.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for
an erroneous decision to be reheard and
corrected. A review petition, it must be
remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
15.4 The power of review can be exercised
for the correction of a mistake, but not to
substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised
within the limits specified in the statute
governing the exercise of power.
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal
over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is
impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
7/10
general rule that once a judgment is signed or
pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it
is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of
justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.
16. To wit, through a review application, an
apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the
court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to
explain the said error. The intimation of error at
the first blush enables the court to correct
apparent errors instead of the higher court
correcting such errors. At both the above stages,
detailed reasoning is not warranted.
17. Having noticed the distinction between
the power of review and appellate power, we
restate the power and scope of review
jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as
follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and
important matter or evidence is a ground
available if it is demonstrated that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not
within their knowledge or could not be produced
by the party at the time, the original decree or
order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record may be invoked if there is something
more than a mere error, and it must be the one
which is manifest on the face of the record. Such
an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong
decision. An error which has to be established
by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points
where there may conceivably be two opinions
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other
sufficient reason’ means a reason that is
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the other two categories.”
10. This Court has given anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has
carefully examined the supplementary affidavit, perused the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
8/10
materials on record and considered the settled principles
governing the scope of review jurisdiction.
11. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, this Court
finds that the document filed and relied upon by the petitioner
herein in this review application, i.e., ‘List of Document
produced by defendant in Complaint Case No.291(C) of 2003’
to show that the original Bai Beyana dated 18.09.2001 was in
custody of defendant no.1, does not conclusively establish that
the agreement for sale dated 18.09.2001 was not executed or
that it was fabricated, nor does it, by itself, dislodge the
concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and
affirmed by this Court in the First Appeal. The mere fact that the
original Bai Beyana deed was produced from the custody of the
opposite party no.1/defendant at a later point of time or was
summoned from another court does not necessarily negate its
execution or invalidate the findings arrived at on the basis of
oral and documentary evidence already considered. Such a
contention, in substance, seeks a re-evaluation of evidence and
reassessment of factual conclusions, which is impermissible
within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
12. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered
view that the said document filed on behalf of petitioner in this
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
9/10
Review Application by way of supplementary affidavit does not
have such determinative evidentiary value as would have
inevitably altered the conclusion reached in the First Appeal.
The findings recorded therein were based on a holistic
appreciation of pleadings, evidence and surrounding
circumstances, and not solely on the aspect of custody of the
original agreement dated 18.09.2001.
13. This Court also finds no merit in the submission
that the impugned judgment suffers from an error apparent on
the face of the record. The findings returned in the First Appeal
are reasoned findings based on appreciation of evidence and
application of settled legal principles governing suits for
specific performance. An alleged erroneous conclusion or a
possible alternative view does not constitute an error apparent
warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
is of the considered opinion that none of the grounds urged in
the review application satisfies the statutory parameters laid
down under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The petitioner has
failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record or
any other sufficient reason warranting interference with the
judgment under review. Consequently, the review petition is
Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026
10/10
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the instant civil review is
dismissed at the stage of admission.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
harish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 09.01.2026
Uploading Date 30.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…