SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus VINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.

SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus VINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.

The High Court erred in exercising review jurisdiction to delete para 20 because the observations on possession were based on appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record (including deposition of PW1 and PW2 and an application by defendants seeking the appellants be directed to vacate the property), and no ground under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (such as an error apparent on the face of the record) was made out to justify reviewing and deleting that finding; therefore the High Court's review order was quashed and para 20 restored.

Parties
Appellant: Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs.; Respondent: Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Review Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court review order dated 14.07.2017 quashed and set aside; para 20 of the High Court judgment dated 10.12.2013 restored.
Legal Topics
Review Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, Section 114 CPC, Possession, Framing of Issues
Civil Procedure Property Law Review Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC Section 114 CPC Possession Framing of Issues

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs.

Appellant

Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against High Court Review Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court validly exercised review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to delete para 20 of its judgment
  2. 2 Whether observations as to plaintiffs' possession based on appreciation of evidence could be reviewed and deleted in exercise of review jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether non-framing of a specific issue on possession vitiates findings on possession based on pleadings and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in exercising review jurisdiction to delete para 20 because the observations on possession were based on appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record (including deposition of PW1 and PW2 and an application by defendants seeking the appellants be directed to vacate the property), and no ground under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (such as an error apparent on the face of the record) was made out to justify reviewing and deleting that finding; therefore the High Court's review order was quashed and para 20 restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court review order dated 14.07.2017 quashed and set aside; para 20 of the High Court judgment dated 10.12.2013 restored.

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the High Court in Review Petition No.465 of 2015 is quashed and set aside
  • Paragraph 20 of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 passed in First Appeal No.241 of 2005 is restored