Review Petition Nos. 4001 and 4002 of 2013. Case: Manju Mamik Vs Harjeet Kaur. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberReview Petition Nos. 4001 and 4002 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Harpal Singh Baidwan and Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Khurana, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Man Singh, Advocates, Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate
JudgesV. K. Sharma, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1; Sections 114, 151, 152
Judgement DateJune 17, 2014
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

V. K. Sharma, J.

1. These petitions for review under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') have been filed by the petitioners, Smt. Manju Mamik, Sh. Karan Mamik and Smt. Reema Singh, who were the appellants before this court in RSA No. 460 of 2010, Smt. Manju Mamik and others vs. Smt. Harjeet Kaur and others and RSA No. 461 of 2010, Smt. Manju Mamik vs. Sh. Prithvi Jit Singh and others, decided by this court by a common judgment dated 25.4.2013. For the sake of convenience, it shall be appropriate to mention that the petitioners were defendants No. 1 to 3 in the learned trial court.

2. It shall be appropriate to state at the very outset that in addition to Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioners have also pressed into service Section 114 CPC at the time of hearing arguments in the review petitions.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

4. Section 114 CPC reads as under:-

114. Review-Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved,-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

5. Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is to the following effect:-

1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

6. On the scope of power of review, the petitioners have relied upon the following authorities:-

(1) S. Thilagavathy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011(6) SCC 365.

(2) Collector of 24 Parganas and others vs. Lalith Mohan Mullick and others, 1988 AIR (SC) 2121.

(3) Nehali Panjiyara and others vs. Shyama Devi and others, 2002(10) SCC 578.

(4) Moran Mar Basselios Chatholicos and another vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others, 1954 AIR (SC) 526.

(5) N. D Co-op Transport Socy vs. Beli Ram etc., 1981 AIR (H.P.) 1.

(6) State of West Bengal and others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612.

(7) Usha Bharti vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No........... of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 22035 of 2013.

7. Per Contra, reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents on the scope of power of review on the following authorities:-

(1) Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector, District Gwalior and others, 2013 (2) R.A.J. 89.

(2) Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others, 2013 (5) R.A.J. 62: AIR 2013 (SC) 3301.

(3) S. Bhagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, 2008 (1) RCR (Rent) 16.

(4) Haridas...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT