Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 927 (RAJ)

Richhpal Singh v. Karnel Singh

2007-05-02

R.N.ARVIND

body2007
Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a review petition under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the judgment dated 20.6.2006 passed by this Bench in Revision/TA/2258/2005/Sriganganagar. 2. Briefly, the facts of this review are that the petitioner submitted a suit under Sections 88, 91 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, which is still pending. In this suit an application for injunction was made before learned Sub-Divisional Officer by Richhpal Singh praying that the non-petitioners be prevented from interfering in possession of the petitioner and also should be restrained from transferring the disputed land to anybody. An another application was also made by the non-petitioners for getting injunction against the petitioner for the same purpose. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer consolidated both the applications and legitimately came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of a quarrel between the parties and there is allegation of threatened alienation and he found that it would be proper for the maintenance of peace and protection of the interest of the parties that receiver be appointed. An appeal against this order was made before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar by the present petitioner and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar by his order dated 7.5.2005 found the property in medio and found that the order of appointing a receiver was proper in the circumstances of this case. He also ordered that the parties are free to make request under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the trial Court. Aggrieved against the order of appointment of receiver, the petitioner came to this Court and obtained stay order against auction of the land for agricultural purposes. The stay is continuing and the auction which was made, had a bid of Rs. 95,000/- is in medio and the land could not be cultivated and loss of Rs. 95,000/-has occurred. By a revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar and learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur for appointing receiver and had also requested to take the land on cash security under Section 212(2) of the R.T. Act. This revision petition was rejected by the Board of Revenue through the judgment under review. 3. This revision petition was rejected by the Board of Revenue through the judgment under review. 3. Arguing in support of the petition the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that there is error apparent on the face of the record in he order of this Bench dated 20.6.06 in Revision/TA/2258/2005/ Sriganganagar. this order is full of contradictions because on the one hand order of appointment of receiver has been upheld and on the other hand parties have been asked to approach learned Sub-Divisional Officer. He argued that there are sufficient reasons for acceptance of review in this case as per 2005 RRD page 592. He also argued that this property is not in medio and learned Bench has made a mistake by accepting the property in medio. The possession was with the petitioner and possession should be returned to the petitioner. In support of his argument he invited our attention to 1989 RRD page 160 and 402. Receiver is the harshest remedy and this cannot be utilised for ejectment of person in possession. He invited out attention to AIR 1996 SC 936. He also argued that this review petition may be accepted and the order of Single Bench may be set aside. 4. Having heard learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner and having carefully perused the review petition and having carefully examined the decision given by this Bench, I come to the following conclusions:– (a) The arguments advanced by learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner have already been discussed at length in the impugned order passed by this Bench. The issues of property in medio and the issues regarding justification of appointing a receiver have all been discussed in detail. Once these issues have already been discussed, they cannot be discussed again. Nothing has been pointed out by learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner which could suggest that the legal position has been misconceived or material record has been ignored. The authority cited as 2005 RRD page 592 is perhaps cited by oversight because no such authority at this page is available in RRD 2005 page 592 in matters connected with review. I believe learned advocate perhaps wanted to cite AIR 2005 SC 592 . The authority cited as 2005 RRD page 592 is perhaps cited by oversight because no such authority at this page is available in RRD 2005 page 592 in matters connected with review. I believe learned advocate perhaps wanted to cite AIR 2005 SC 592 . This authority of Honble Supreme Court AIR 2005 SC 592 is directly relevant in review matters, although in my humble opinion the facts and circumstances of this case are different. Legal position has neither been misconceived nor material facts have been ignored and there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record, hence the authority of Honble Supreme court does not support the prayer of the petitioner in this case. (b) Honble Supreme Court and Honble High Court have held in several matters that the remedy of review is not an instrument for re-examination of the facts and it cannot be utilised as an instrument for re-rewriting the judgment. The scope of review does not provide an opportunity of an extra appeal. It has been held that even when judgment is erroneous the scope of review is not attracted. (c) The scope of review is very limited and review is not a method of re-examination of a judgment. It does not even give any scope to the court to sit in appeal over the judgment pronounced by the same Court. The scope permits only to correct the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, AIR 1995 SC page 455 clearly held that the error apparent on the face of the record should be such which should strike immediately looking at the face of the record and which does not require any long drawn process of reasoning or examination of law. The Courts are not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence but only restrict themselves for correction of the mistakes which are visible on the face of the record. In Ajit Kumar Rath vs. Orissa State AIR 2000 SC 85 , the Honble Apex Court has held that the power is not absolute and it is subject to restrictions indicated in Order 47 CPC. A review cannot be claimed as a remedy for a fresh hearing or for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. In Ajit Kumar Rath vs. Orissa State AIR 2000 SC 85 , the Honble Apex Court has held that the power is not absolute and it is subject to restrictions indicated in Order 47 CPC. A review cannot be claimed as a remedy for a fresh hearing or for correction of an erroneous view taken earlier. (d) The power of review can be exercised only for correction of patent error of law or fact which states in the face without any elaborate argument being needed in establishing it. The error apparent on the face of the record is one which is self-evident and does not require a process of reasoning and it is distinct from erroneous decision. Rehearing the matter of detecting an error in the earlier decision and then correcting the same do not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of review. Jurisdiction of review cannot be used as an appellant jurisdiction in disguise. Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Mohinder Singh, 2003(1) WLC (SC) page 499 considered the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is reproduced here:– "Civil Procedure Code, O. 47 R. 1 — Scope — Hearing of review does not mean giving one more chance of rehearing matter already disposed of — High Court in hearing review as if it was rehearing whole petition overstepped its limits — Order of High Court set aside and original order restored". (e) Finally it would be relevant to refer to RRT 2005(1) page 545 in which Honble Supreme Court has decided a principle that "view taken in judgment may be erroneous but cannot be a ground for review". (f) Nothing new has been pointed out in the review petition which can suggest that the order dated 20.6.2006 passed by this Bench was beyond jurisdiction and since the order was passed with proper jurisdiction; hence it cannot be argued that the order was passed beyond jurisdiction as such in circumstances when the order is not ab-initio void then the scope of jurisdiction will remain restricted to the mistake which are apparent on the face of the record. In this case there are no such mistakes and there is no scope of review t be entertained. 11. As such this review petition does not justify that it should be entertained and admitted and there are no grounds for acceptance of review petition. 12. In this case there are no such mistakes and there is no scope of review t be entertained. 11. As such this review petition does not justify that it should be entertained and admitted and there are no grounds for acceptance of review petition. 12. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. Pronounced.