ASHARFI DEVI (D) THR. LRS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

ASHARFI DEVI (D) THR. LRS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The appeal does not arise from the main order but only from the review order; thus, the Supreme Court cannot examine the main order's legality. The High Court's review order was passed in conformity with Order XLVII Rule 1 as there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The original appellant failed to prove actual possession of the land at the time of the Repeal Act and cannot re-litigate the matter in review jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: Asharfi Devi (D) Thr. LRS.; Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Review Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Powers Under Article 142, Review Under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings, Possession Under Repeal Act
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Property Law Powers Under Article 142 Review Under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings Possession Under Repeal Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asharfi Devi (D) Thr. LRS.

Appellant

State of U.P. & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Review Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court can examine the legality of the main order when only the review order is appealed
  2. 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC
  3. 3 Whether powers under Article 142 can be invoked to permit challenge to main order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal does not arise from the main order but only from the review order; thus, the Supreme Court cannot examine the main order's legality. The High Court's review order was passed in conformity with Order XLVII Rule 1 as there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The original appellant failed to prove actual possession of the land at the time of the Repeal Act and cannot re-litigate the matter in review jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No grounds to invoke Article 142