Allahabad High Court
H.K.S. DEVELOPERS PVT LTDversusState of UP AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as it does not fall within the limited scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and no error apparent on the face of the record exists.
Summary
H.K.S. Developers Pvt Ltd filed a review petition against the Allahabad High Court's order dated 17‑08‑2023 that dismissed its writ petition challenging a title dispute. The petitioner argued that the earlier judgment should be recalled and the writ heard afresh, contending that the court erred in its findings. The respondent contended that the review court had already considered all grounds and that review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, citing Supreme Court precedents. The High Court held that the earlier judgment was rendered after a full appreciation of evidence, no patent error existed, and the review petition amounted to an abuse of process. Relying on the Apex Court’s rulings in Parsion Devi and S. Murali Sundaram, the court dismissed the review application.
Issues considered
- The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and whether the petition raises an error apparent on the face of the record
- Whether the High Court's earlier judgment dismissing the writ petition can be revisited
- Whether the petitioner’s reliance on an unregistered deed after the title dispute attained finality is permissible
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 47 Rule 1, Section 114
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- U.P. C.H. Act — s. 9-A(2)
Subjects
- review petition
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 114 CPC
- Article 226
- title dispute
- U.P. C.H. Act
- error apparent on the face of the record
- abuse of process
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 355 of 2024
H.K.S. Developers Pvt Ltd
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 4 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C., Punit Kumar Gupta
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the review-
applicant/writ petitioner and Sri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel
for the opposite party/respondent.
2. The review application has been filed against the final judgment
and order dated 17.8.2023 passed by this Court, dismissing the
instant writ petition on merit.
3. Learned counsel for the review applicant-writ petitioner pressed all
the grounds taken in the review application in order to demonstrate
that judgment dated 17.8.2023, passed by this Court should be
reviewed and the writ petition filed by the petitioner should be allowed
on the ground set up in the writ petition. He placed the averment
made in the review application as well as in the writ petition in order
to demonstrate that writ petition is to be heard afresh after recalling
the judgment dated 17.8.2023 passed by this Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite
party-respondent submitted that each and every ground taken in the
review application has been taken into consideration by the Court
while deciding the writ petition vide order dated 17.8.2023, as such,
review application cannot be entertained by this Court. He submitted
that review is not rehearing of the entire proceeding in view of the
ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1167-
1170 of 2023, M. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and
Others, Judgement Dated:24.2.2023.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.
6. This Court while deciding the writ petition has passed the detailed
order, considering each and every aspect of the matter. The
operative parts of the order dated 17.8.2023 of the aforesaid
CMRA No. 355 of 2024
2
judgment are quoted hereunder:-
"13. Considering the finding recorded by the Addl.
District Magistrate/revisional court, there is no scope
for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India at the instance of the petitioner as petitioner is
claiming right on the basis of unregistered deed,
alleged to be executed on 26.4.2010, which was
registered in the year 2014, i.e., after the date of
decision the title dispute by the revisional court.
14. Once the title dispute under the U.P. C.H. Act, at the
instance of the tenure holders claiming right from the
recorded tenure holders, has attained finality, the
petitioner cannot reopen the matter after such a long
period, on the basis of sale-deed which was
unregistered on the date of decision of revision vide
order dated 17.4.2013. It is also material that dispute
against the basic year entry was going on for more
than 25 years and the same has attained finality in the
year 2013, as such, the recall/restoration filed by the
petitioner on 8.6.2018 to reopen the title proceeding
further, has been rightly refused by the Addl. District
Magistrate while passing the order dated 10.4.2019.
15. The case law cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances mentioned above.
16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the finding recorded by the Addl.
District Magistrate, while rejecting the recall/restoration
application, filed by the petitioner, no interference is
required in the matter.
17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim
order granted on 28.9.2021 stands vacated.
18. All the pending applications in the writ petition
stand disposed of."
7. The finding recorded by this Court while dismissing the writ petition
fully demonstrates that the order has been passed on merit after
considering the entire evidence on record, as such, the review
application filed on behalf of the writ petitioner is abuse of process of
law.
8. It is material to mention that dispute under Section 9-A(2) of the
U.P. C.H. Act has been rightly dealt with under the judgment dated
17.8.2023 which cannot be examined again and again by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
CMRA No. 355 of 2024
3
9. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi
and Others, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 has discussed the scope
of review application. Paragraph nos.7 to 10 of the Parsion Devi
(supra) is quoted herenuder:-
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC
1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174] (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined:
"What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the
statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not
involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent
on the face of the record'). The fact that on the earlier
occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a
substantial question of law arose would not per se be
conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous.
Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow
that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for
there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always
be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision
and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by
'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected, but lies only for patent error."
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
[(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage
from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
[(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that 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
CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and
has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 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".
10. Considered in the light of this settled position we find that
Sharma, J. clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the
Court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observations of
Sharma, J. that "accordingly, the order in question is reviewed
and it is held that the decree in question was of composite
nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunctions
were provided" and as such the case was covered by Article
182 and not Article 181 cannot be said to fall within the scope
CMRA No. 355 of 2024
4
of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between
an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of
the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher
forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the
review jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order,
Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision dated 25-4-1989
as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so
many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order
Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record which was not of such a
nature, "which had to be detected by a long-drawn process of
reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta,
J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases
cannot detract from the real import of the order passed in
exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition
in the facts and circumstances of the case was not
permissible. The aggrieved judgment-debtors could have
approached the higher forum through appropriate
proceedings to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set
aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review" of the
order of Gupta, J. on the grounds detailed in the review
petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that
the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and we
accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned
order dated 6-3-1997."
10. In the judgment of S. Murali Sundaram (supra), the Apex Court
has again reiterated the earlier view taken in Parsion Devi (supra)
that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope of ambit under Order 47 Rule 1 read
with Section 114 C.P.C. Paragraph No.6 of the Judgment will be
relevant for perusal which is quoted hereunder:-
"6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above and applying the law laid down by this Court on
Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, we are of
the opinion that in the present case while allowing the
review application the High Court has exceeded in its
jurisdiction and has exercised the jurisdiction not
vested in it under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section
114 CPC and therefore the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court allowing the review
application and setting aside the order dated
03.03.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
6.1 As the Contempt Petition has been dismissed by
the High Court on setting aside the order dated
03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010, on
setting aside the order passed in Review Petition and
consequently restoring the order dated 03.03.2017
CMRA No. 355 of 2024
5
passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 the dismissal
of the contempt petition is to be set aside and the
matter is to be remitted to the High Court to decide the
same afresh in accordance with law and on its own
merits.
6.2 Similarly the order dismissing the Writ Petition (MD)
No.14847 of 2017 and Writ Petition (MD) No.16256 of
2017 is also to be quashed and set aside and the said
writ petitions are to be remanded to the High Court to
decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on
its own merits."
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view
of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Parsion Devi
(supra) and S. Murali Sundaram (supra), no interference is required
against the final judgment and order dated 17.8.2023.
12. The review application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
May 5, 2026
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…