Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 52 (RAJ)

Dharam Singh v. Gaje Singh

2007-01-06

R.N.ARVIND

body2007
Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a review petition under Section 86 of the Land Revenue Act against the order of the Single Bench dated 20.11.2003 passed in revision petition No. 8/2000. The main grievance in the review petition is that learned Single Bench has ignored the record which was very much available when the order was passed but that record was ignored and mention was made in the order that the petitioner did not file reply of the application for condonation of the delay and the affidavit was not contradicted before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. 2. This review petition was heard. 3. The contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that in his judgment dated 20.11.03 learned Single Bench made a mistake by ignoring the record available with the enclosed file of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. Learned Single Bench in his decision mentioned that reply of the application under Order 9 Rules 13 CPC was not given. Similarly it has also bee mentioned in the judgment that neither reply of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor the counter affidavit was given by the present appellant. On a bare perusal of the record of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, it is evident that the above referred reply is very much on the record but learned Single Bench made a mistake by ignoring and overlooking it. he also argued that the decision has been passed after a long lapse after hearing the arguments and as such decision has been passed in violation of the provision of law. As such the decision of learned Single Bench suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and it is very much covered under the provisions of Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the judgment needs to be set aside and review petition deserves to be accepted. 4. Learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioner argued that the order passed by the learned Single Bench has been passed after due appreciation of the facts on record. It is well settled principle of law that decision may be erroneous but it cannot be made a subject matter of review. He also argued that the scope of review is limited. No substantial loss occurred due to the rejection of the revision petition. Hence, the review petition needs to be ignored. 5. It is well settled principle of law that decision may be erroneous but it cannot be made a subject matter of review. He also argued that the scope of review is limited. No substantial loss occurred due to the rejection of the revision petition. Hence, the review petition needs to be ignored. 5. Having heard the learned advocates and having perused the record, I come to the following conclusions:— (1) It is evident on the bare perusal of the record of the file of learned Revenue Appellate Authority that learned ?single Bench made a mistake by overlooking the reply of application before learned Revenue Appellate Authority and also ignored the counter affidavit available in the file of the learned Revenue Appellate Authlority. The above mentioned reply and counter affidavit are both very much available in the file. As such this is a mistake which is an error apparent on the face of record and no keener appreciation is required to detect error in the judgment and this review petition is well covered under the provisions of the scope of review. (2) In this matter there is error apparent on the face of record and as such the scope of review is very much inevitable and exercisable in this case. 5. In view of the discussions above, the order of learned Single Bench dated 20.11.2003 is set aside. This revision petition is restored for re-hearing. This matter may be put up for decision of the revision petition. The stay order granted earlier by this court dated 23.5.2000 shall continue till the decision of the revision petition. 6. This review petition is accepted as above. 7. This case may be listed for hearing on 22.2.2007. Pronounced.