A review petition sought reconsideration of an earlier writ decision concerning a handwriting-expert opinion on an agreement to sell, claiming suppression of facts by the plaintiff. The court held no error was apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No. 51 of 2024
---- Applicant/Defendant
Versus
---- Non-Applicant/Plaintiff
Application for review under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Order dated 31.07.2023 passed in W.P.(227) No. 274 of 2020
By Circulation in Chamber Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
18.03.2024
1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the Chamber under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.
2. The applicant is the original respondent in W.P. (227) No. 274/2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the review petitioner”) and the non-applicant is the original petitioner in the above Writ Petition (hereinafter referred to as “the review respondent”).
3. The facts of the case are that the review respondent/plaintiff had assailed the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Katghora, District Korba whereby the application moved by the review respondent/plaintiff seeking the opinion of handwriting expert on the affidavit executed between the parties, has been rejected. From the pleadings, it emerges that a civil suit was filed by the review respondent/plaintiff for the specific performance of the contract. On the
2
basis of the agreement pertaining to Khasra No. 16/5 area 0.25 acres, the parties entered into an agreement to sell on 24.11.2011. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application was moved by the review petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the opinion of the handwriting expert on an agreement to sell dated 24.11.2011 on the ground that the alleged agreement is a forged document. The application moved by the review petitioner/defendant was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2019 and thereafter the report was submitted by the handwriting expert in favour of the review petitioner/defendant. Later on, the review respondent/plaintiff moved an application seeking the opinion of the handwriting expert of the very same document however the application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 holding that the objections raised by the review respondent/plaintiff with regard to the report submitted by the handwriting expert Dr. Sunanda Dhenge are not acceptable as its veracity has not been questioned by the review respondent/plaintiff.
4. The review petitioner seeks a review of the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(227) No. 274/2020 on the ground that the review respondent/plaintiff had suppressed the facts in the writ petition for which the complete facts of the case duly recorded with reasons by the trial Court remained concealed from this Court for due appreciation and adjudication on the relief sought in the writ petition. It is submitted that the review respondent/plaintiff was given all reasonable opportunity to crossexamine the handwriting expert's evidence which was recorded in about 05 pages wherein the credibility of the handwriting expert could not be impeached. It is further submitted that the onus to prove that the
3
purported agreement Ex.-P/1 was not signed by the plaintiff i.e. review respondent in the trial Court lied upon him and on whose application the trial Court granted permission to the Handwriting Expert Smt. Dr. Sunanda Dhenge to take photographs of the questioned documents for the expert opinion which could not be rebutted at the relevant time by the plaintiff/review respondent. It is also submitted that an application under Section 151 CPC raising objection on the opinion brought by the defendant was withdrawn by the plaintiff on his own and later as an afterthought made a subsequent application to bring a second opinion of another Expert without any reasons to discredit the opinion of the Handwriting Expert who already deposed before the trial Court without any hindrance and discredit. It is submitted that the provisions of the Evidence Act under Sections 46, 47, 68, 71 and 73 could not be brought out for appreciation by this Court neither in the petition nor in the pleadings in W.P. (227) No. 274/2020. It is further submitted that there is a catena of judgments pronounced by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court to refer the disputed/questioned documents to the Government Expert for reaching an unbiased conclusion and the legal issue which existed in the instant case has not even been considered by this Court, which is sought to be reviewed herein.
5. At this juncture, it shall be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to the power of review. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
6. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:-
4
“ Order 47 Rule 1 CPC :
" 1. Application for review of judgment - 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. (emphasis supplied)
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.
Explanation . The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
7. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer of Delhi, 1980 (2) SCC 167 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace .”
8. In the matter of Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and
5
others [AIR 1965 SC 845] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. ”
9. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported 1997 (8) SCC 715 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:-
“ Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise. ”
10. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board , reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “ The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided .”
11. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “ even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review .”
12. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun
6
Bhavanappa , reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:-
“ 8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all. ”
13. The case (W.P.(227) No. 274/2020) was decided by this Court after discussing the entire facts and going through the records available, and in light of the principles of law laid down through various judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts; there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the prayer sought for rehearing of W.P.(227) No. 274/2020 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
vatti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any error apparent on the face of the record exists in the order dated 31.07.2023 of W.P.(227) No. 274/2020 justifying a review under Section 114/Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of DelhiRelied on¶7
1980 (2) SCC 167 · Who else cites this
Sajjan Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and othersRelied on¶8
AIR 1965 SC 845 · Who else cites this
Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and othersRelied on¶9
1997 (8) SCC 715 · Who else cites this
M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity BoardRelied on¶10
2020 (2) SCC 677 · Who else cites this
Beghar Foundation v. K.S. PuttaswamyRelied on¶11
(2021) 3 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun BhavanappaRelied on¶12
AIR 1960 SC 137 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar Shrivastava
Bhaiyalal Jaiswal
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
