Dismissed

Mukesh Das and 2 Others v. Shivpujan Das Chela Siya Ram Das

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2024CMRA/431/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review applicants challenged a writ order holding their Board of Revenue revision maintainable, arguing the court overlooked Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code barring appeals against interlocutory orders. The court held the arguments were already dealt with and review cannot reopen merits, relying on Perry Kansagra on Order 47 Rule 1 CPC limits, and dismissed the review.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mukesh Das and 2 Others Vs Shivpujan Das Chela Siya Ram… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180029

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 431 of 2024 Applicant :- Mukesh Das And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Shivpujan Das Chela Siya Ram Das Counsel for Applicant :- Amish Kumar Srivastava,Harish Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

The instant Review Application has been preferred, by the private respondents 5 to 7 namely Mukesh Das Chela Haridas, Suresh Das Chela Haridas and Pankaj Das Chela Hari Das, in writ B No. 188 of 2023 against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed therein whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed and the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. REV/1642/2022 Sant Kabir Nagar (Mukesh Das vs. Hari Das Chela Siyaram Das) was set aside. The Revision was held to be maintainable and liberty was granted to the parties to take recourse to law against the order dated 18.05.2022 as advised.

¶6

I, have heard the learned counsel for the Review Applicants and have perused the records.

¶7

The Review has been sought on the ground that the Court while passing the order dated 21.08.2024 has omitted to consider the legal proposition as mentioned in Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which restricts filing of an appeal against an interlocutory order. It is thus urged that in that view of the matter the Revision preferred by the Review Applicants before the Board of Revenue was clearly maintainable but the Court proceeded to hold otherwise and as such the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed.

¶8

This Court while deciding the core issue as to whether the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Ghanghata, Sant Kabir Nagar, in proceedings under Sections 34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 is an order amenable to an Appeal under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or to a revision under section 210 of the Code took note of the fact that the subject matter of the mutation case was with regard to debutter property and any claim in respect thereof was to be decided on the basis of personal law as may be applicable, the Tehsildar proceeded to hold that he lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter and accordingly

¶9

relegated the parties to get a declaration of their rights from a competent Court and thereafter move for mutation. This Court interpreted the order to be an order passed under the provisions of Section 31 (1) (c) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 i.e. declining to pass mutation order on the basis of Will dated 23.02.2017 and therefore appealable under Section 35 (2) of the Revenue Code, 2006.,

¶10

The arguments urged by learned counsel for the Review Applicants has already been dealt with by this Court in the order dated 21.08.2024 sought to be reviewed. The Review Petition seeks to reopen the controversy and attempt a rehearing of the matter which is impermissible. The Apex Court in the case of Perry Kansagra vs Smriti Madan Kansagra, reported in 2019 (20) SCC 753 after considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has summed up as under:-

¶11

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

¶12

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶13

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

¶14

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

¶15

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.”

¶16

In view of the above, this Court after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the Revision Applicants finds no merit in the Review petition. The Review is consequently dismissed . There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Deepak/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Das and 2 Others v. Shivpujan Das Chela Siya Ram Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mukesh Das and 2 Others v. Shivpujan Das Chela Siya Ram Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases