Supreme Court clarifies review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in property dispute: Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat (2020) INSC 490 (3 November 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 490

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M. R. Shah, J.

Can a court review its own judgment merely because it feels a different view could be taken? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question regarding the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This case arose from a property dispute where the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had reviewed its earlier judgment, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clarified that review is not an appeal in disguise and has specific limitations. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute concerning House No. 28/955 in Gwalior. Shri Ram Sahu, the predecessor of the appellants, filed a civil suit in 2005 seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 25 March 1995, executed by defendant no. 3 in favor of defendant nos. 1 and 2, was null and void. The original plaintiff, Shri Ram Sahu, claimed ownership based on a will executed in his favor by one Chhimmabai on 19 October 1993. He also asserted that he was in continuous possession of the property after Chhimmabai’s death. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that Chhimmabai had adopted defendant no. 3, who then sold the property to defendant nos. 1 and 2. The defendants also claimed to be in possession of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, disbelieving the will and holding that the adoption of defendant no. 3 was valid.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling against the plaintiff on the validity of the will and the adoption. The plaintiff then appealed to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application to dismiss the appeal and to direct the appellant to vacate the suit property, which was later withdrawn. The appellant also filed an application to amend the plaint seeking an injunction against dispossession, which was dismissed. The High Court dismissed the appeal but made observations in paragraph 20 regarding the plaintiff’s possession of the disputed house. Subsequently, the respondents filed a review petition to remove these observations, which was allowed by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework in this case is based on Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides the substantive power of review, and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which outlines the grounds on which a review can be sought.

Section 114 of the CPC states:
“Subject as aforesaid, 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, 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.”

Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC states:
“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.”

These provisions allow a court to review its own judgment under specific circumstances, such as the discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these provisions is crucial in determining the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• ✓ The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising review powers beyond the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
• ✓ The High Court should not have set aside findings on possession based on evidence presented before the trial court.
• ✓ Deleting paragraph 20 was incorrect as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
• ✓ Non-framing of a specific issue on possession is not a valid ground to set aside a finding based on evidence.
• ✓ The High Court erred by considering issues from a different case (Civil Suit No. 3-A/2005) instead of the relevant suit (Civil Suit No. 4-A/2005).
• ✓ The issue of possession was at large, with evidence presented by both parties, making non-framing of a specific issue insignificant.
• ✓ The respondents did not lead any evidence regarding their possession, and the plaintiff’s possession was not cross-examined.
• ✓ The respondents’ application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to vacate the suit property admitted the appellants’ possession.
• ✓ The review application was filed with malafide intentions, after the proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and an order to register a case against the respondents.
• ✓ The High Court had earlier dismissed an application to amend the plaint to include relief against dispossession, acknowledging the issue of possession.
• ✓ The Magistrate’s order under Section 340 CrPC noted the respondents’ forging of documents to show their possession.
• ✓ The subsequent suit filed by the respondents for possession was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• ✓ The original suit was for cancellation of the sale deed and an injunction against further transfer, not for possession.
• ✓ No issue of possession was framed by the trial court, making observations on possession unwarranted.
• ✓ The respondents claimed that possession was with Ghisa Lal Sahu, then Chhimmabai, then Dilip Kumar Sahu, and finally with the respondents after the sale deed.
• ✓ The application for vacating the suit property was withdrawn as no relief could arise from the plaintiff’s suit, and part of the property was with the petitioner’s estranged wife.
• ✓ The application to amend the plaint was dismissed, and no separate suit for the relief of possession was filed.
• ✓ The High Court rightly deleted the observations in paragraph 20, as the issue of possession was not before the trial or appellate court.
• ✓ The court has inherent power to correct errors, and the observations in paragraph 20 were made by error.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in allowing the review application in exercise of powers under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC on the grounds that the issue of possession was neither before the Learned Trial Court nor before the First Appellate Court and no such issue with respect to possession was framed by the Learned Trial Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 78*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to explain the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
• Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170*: The Supreme Court used this case to reiterate that review proceedings are not an appeal and are confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
• Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047*: This case was cited to emphasize the definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.
• Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137*: The Supreme Court used this case to clarify that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require a long process of reasoning.
• Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715*: This case was used to reiterate that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision.
• Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224*: This case was cited to emphasize that the power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.
• Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112*: This case was used to interpret the phrase “any other sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
• Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526*: This case was cited to approve the interpretation of “any othersufficient reason” as analogous to the specified reasons.
• Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663*: This case was used to discuss the conditions for review under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC, emphasizing that the review court does not sit in appeal.
• Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai*: This case was cited to reiterate that review is only permissible if there is an error apparent on the face of the order and allowing the order to stand would lead to a failure of justice.
• T.C. Basappa vs. T.Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440*: This case was used to explain what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the proceedings, stating that such an error must be a patent error.
• Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233*: This case was cited to clarify the distinction between a mere error and an error apparent on the face of the record.
• Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 1372*: The Supreme Court used this case to reiterate that a review is not an appeal in disguise where an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected.
• State of West Bengal and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612*: This case was cited to detail the nature of an error apparent and the limitations of review.
• Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma Rao v. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao (1899-1900) 27 IA 197*: This case was used to explain that the ground for amendment must exist at the date of the decree.
• Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter, 1949 FCR 36*: This case was cited to state that when a court disposes of a case without applying its mind to a provision of law, it may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of the record.
• Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple vs. Meenakshi Ammal, (2015) 3 SCC 624*: This case was cited to emphasize that non-framing of issues fades into insignificance if parties are aware of the rival cases and lead evidence.
• Bhuwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 136*: The Supreme Court used this case to emphasize that non-framing of issues is not fatal when the parties are aware of the rival cases and lead evidence.
• Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad (2003) 7 SCC 52*: This case was cited to reiterate that non-framing of issues is not fatal when the parties are aware of the rival cases and lead evidence.
• Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji , (1971) 3 SCC 844*: This case was used to emphasize that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by law.
• Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909*: This case was cited to emphasize that the High Court has the power to review its orders to prevent miscarriage of justice.
• K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 473*: This case was used to emphasize that the principles of Order 47 Rule 1 should be extended to tribunals.
• Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, (1998) 4 SCC 447*: This case was cited to emphasize that the power of review granted to tribunals is similar to that of a civil court under Order 47 Rule 1.
• Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, (1999) 9 SCC 596*: This case was used to reiterate that the power of review vested in the Tribunal is similar to that conferred upon a civil court.
• State of Haryana v. M.P. Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457*: This case was cited to emphasize that a review petition is not maintainable if there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
• Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn., (2007) 9 SCC 369*: This case was used to emphasize that a tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over its own judgment in the guise of review.

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and legal precedents, concluded that the High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction. The Court held that the High Court’s observations on possession were based on evidence and that the non-framing of a specific issue was not a valid ground to delete these observations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction is not an appellate power and cannot be used to rehear a case.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not an appellate power and cannot be used to rehear a case. The grounds for review are limited to the discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing its earlier judgment based on grounds that did not fall within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The court emphasized that non-framing of an issue is not a valid ground to set aside a finding based on evidence if the parties were aware of the rival cases and led evidence.

Obiter Dicta

While the core of the judgment focused on the limits of review jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also made several observations that can be considered obiter dicta:

• The Supreme Court reiterated that non-framing of an issue is not fatal if the parties are aware of the rival cases and lead evidence. This was an observation made in the context of the specific facts of the case, but it has broader implications for civil litigation.
• The Court also highlighted that review is not a rehearing of the matter and cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision. This observation reinforces the limited nature of the review jurisdiction.
• The Court noted that the respondents did not lead any evidence to show their possession, and the plaintiff’s possession was not cross-examined. This observation underscores the importance of evidence in deciding issues of fact.
• The Court also noted the malafide intentions of the respondents in filing the review application, after proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and an order to register a case against the respondents.
• The Court also noted that the subsequent suit filed by the respondents for possession was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the High Court dated 14.07.2017, which had allowed the review petition and deleted para 20 of the original judgment. The Supreme Court restored para 20 of the judgment dated 10.12.2013 passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court clarified that the observations regarding the possession of the disputed house were based on evidence and were not erroneous.

Flowchart of the Case

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat (2020) INSC 490 provides a crucial clarification on the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment underscores that review is not an appellate power and cannot be used to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision. The grounds for review are limited to the discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder for courts to exercise their review jurisdiction judiciously and within the confines of the law. This case is essential for legal professionals and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of civil procedure and the limits of judicial review.