Dismissed¶20

Devi Charan & Anr. v. Ranpat Singh & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Mar 2025CM(M)/915/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed; scope of review limited to error apparent on the face of the record; review not an appeal in disguise; re-agitation of decided contentions barred; CM(M) 915/2019; order dated 05.03.2025; possession decree dated 16.04.2018; 305 sq. yards; site plan Ex. PW-4/9; Execution No. 1089/2018; Delhi High Court; Ravinder Dudeja.

What did the court decide?

Review has limited purport: under its guise the review petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue questions already addressed and decided; review cannot be allowed to be an “appeal in disguise”. ¶17

Devi Charan & Anr. Vs Ranpat Singh & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the review petition impermissibly re-agitates and reargues contentions already raised and decided in the main proceedings, review being confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and not constituting an “appeal in disguise”. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The scope of review is “error apparent only”; the judgment is not to be reviewed even if the parties are in a position to satisfy the court that the order under review is an erroneous order.

¶17

Key takeaways

All the contentions raised in the review petition were already considered, more particularly in Paras No. 8 to 11 of the order dated 05.03.2025, and cannot be re-agitated now.ratio¶18
No error apparent on the face of the record was found; the review petition has no merit.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Ravinder Dudeja, J.) dismisses Review Pet. 191/2025, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, seeking review of the judgment dated 05.03.2025 in CM(M) 915/2019, which concerned execution of a possession decree dated 16.04.2018 for 305 sq. yards at Property No. 1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (red portion of site plan Ex. PW-4/9; portions “E”–“H”). Holding: review is confined to “error apparent only”; it cannot be an “appeal in disguise”; contentions already considered in Paras 8–11 of the reviewed order cannot be re-agitated; no error apparent was found and the meritless review petition was dismissed. Context: the decree had attained finality unchallenged by the petitioners, a Regular First Appeal by the respondents remained pending, possession of the 305 sq. yards had already been taken during its pendency, and the executing court's orders of 05.04.2019 (Exec. No. 1089/2018) and 25.04.2019 recorded the 305 sq. yards admission and a disputed excess claim of about 100 sq. yards.

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 915/2019 & CM APPL. 18867/2025 STAY, REVIEW PET. 191/2025 REVIEW OF ORDER DT. 05.03.2025

¶4

DEVI CHARAN & ANR .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv. versus RANPAT SINGH & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gurmeher S. Sistani and Mr. Varun Mehlawat, Adv. for respondent.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶7

O R D E R % 15.04.2025

¶8

This is a petition filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 for review of judgment dated 05.03.2025, passed by this Court in CM (M) 915/2019.

¶9

Sh. Sistani, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner before the trial court was only in respect of 305 sq. yards of land and as per the judgment passed by the learned trial court, respondent was directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. land measuring 305 sq. yards of property No. 1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW-4/9, and in terms of the said judgment, decree was drawn only in respect of land measuring 305 sq. yards. It is submitted that the judgment and decree has attained finality, as the petitioners before this Court, never sought to challenge the said decree, which was only in respect to the area of 305 sq. yards. Rather, it is the respondents who have preferred Regular First Appeal,

¶10

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 00:46:19

¶11

which is pending before this Court and the during the pendency of the said appeal, petitioners have already taken the possession of said 305sq. yards of land. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 05.04.2019 passed in Execution No. 1089/2018 duly records that “it is an admitted fact between the parties that Decree Holder has obtained the decree dated 16.04.2018 for possession of the area of 305 sq. yards as per site plan Ex. PW-4/9” and also recorded the submission of the Judgment Debtor that “Respondent was in possession of area of more than 305 sq. yards in the above-mentioned premises.” It has also been recorded in the said order that both parties agreed that before the Bailiff is appointed, they shall together carry out the actual measurement of the premises in question in possession of the Judgment Debtor.

¶12

It is argued that this Court has been misled to believe that the executing court has acted beyond the decree and by ordering to handover the possession, has exceeded its jurisdiction. It is argued that the executing court has strictly complied with the decree in letter and spirit and has ordered the handing over the possession of 305 sq. yards area as described in the decree sheet.

¶13

It is further argued that instead of filing a separate suit, respondents have made claim over the additional area of 100 sq. yards, which is beyond the area mentioned in suit as well as in the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 as well as the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the executing court.

¶14

The review petition has been opposed by Mr. Endlaw, learned counsel for the respondent, while drawing the attention of the Court to Para No. 42 of the judgment of the trial court dated 16.04.2018, wherein, the trial court

¶15

¶16

found that site plan Ex. PW-4/9 was proved as un-rebutted by the defendants. He submits that decree for possession has been passed in respect of portion marked with letters “E”, “F”, “G” & “H”, as shown in red colour in the site plan of the property. He further submits that the identification of such boundaries is a sufficient identity of the property, even though, the size of the property is described as 305 sq. yards was ultimately found to be more than that. It is argued that decree having been passed for the possession of land identified as “E”, “F”, “G” & “H” in the site plan, the said decree must be executed in terms of the same as also held by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025. Learned counsel also submits that review petitioners are just taking a second chance of arguments by filing the review application in respect of the aspects already dealt and decided by this Court, and therefore, the present review petition is not maintainable.

¶17

It is a settled law that review has limited purport. Under the guise of the review, the review petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. The review cannot be allowed to be an “appeal in disguise”. The contentions raised and decided in the main proceedings cannot be re-opened and reagitated under the guise of review petition. The scope of review is for review of “error apparent only” and not to review the judgment even if the parties are in a position to satisfy the court that the order under review is an erroneous order.

¶18

All the contentions, as raised in the review petition, were considered, more particularly, in Paras No. 8 to 11 of the order dated 05.03.2025. The same cannot be reagitated now. Thus, I find no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in the review petition.

¶19

¶20

Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶22

APRIL 15, 2025 RM

¶23

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment/order dated 05.03.2025 passed by this Court in CM (M) 915/2019, sought to be reviewed by Review Pet. 191/2025 filed on behalf of respondent No. 1; counsel for the opposing side characterizes it as holding that the decree for possession of land identified as portions “E”, “F”, “G” & “H” in site plan Ex. PW-4/9 must be executed in terms of the site plan.¶8
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi · 05.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Suit before the learned trial court: claim confined to 305 sq. yards; judgment directed the respondent to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of land measuring 305 sq. yards, Property No. 1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (red portion of site plan Ex. PW-4/9).¶9
Prior proceeding
In terms of the trial court judgment, decree was drawn only in respect of land measuring 305 sq. yards; the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018 attained finality as the petitioners before this Court never sought to challenge it.¶9
Prior proceeding
The respondents preferred a Regular First Appeal against the decree.¶9
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the Regular First Appeal, the petitioners already took possession of the said 305 sq. yards of land.¶11
Prior proceeding
Order dated 05.04.2019 in Execution No. 1089/2018 (executing court) recording: (i) the admission that the Decree Holder obtained the decree dated 16.04.2018 for possession of 305 sq. yards per site plan Ex. PW-4/9; (ii) the Judgment Debtor's submission that he was in possession of more than 305 sq. yards; and (iii) both parties' agreement to jointly carry out actual measurement of the premises before a Bailiff is appointed.¶11
Prior proceeding
Order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the executing court; the additional claim of 100 sq. yards is contended to be beyond the area mentioned in the suit, the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2018, and this order.¶13
Prior proceeding
Trial court judgment dated 16.04.2018, Para 42: site plan Ex. PW-4/9 proved unrebutted by the defendants; decree for possession passed in respect of the portion marked with letters “E”, “F”, “G” & “H” shown in red in the site plan.¶16

Devi Charan & Anr. v. Ranpat Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Charan & Anr. v. Ranpat Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Pal Sharma & Anr. Vs Krishna Virmani

Kshitij Gupta Vs Jagdip Singh Bedi and Anr.

Preeti Arora Vs Rahul Arora

Vijay Kumar Sehdev Vs M/S Popular Jewellery Mart HUF Thr Karta Rohit Jain & Ors.

Avg Logistics Limited Vs Indo Money Securities Private Limited & Ors.

Nttesh Arora Vs Isha Arora

Anu Kapur Vs Durga Prasad Ray

State Bank of India Vs Late Yogendra Sharma & Ors.

Joginder Pal Sharma & Anr. Vs Krishna Virmani

Kshitij Gupta Vs Jagdip Singh Bedi and Anr.

Preeti Arora Vs Rahul Arora

Ram Nath Chaudhary & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sh Rajesh Singh and Ors. Vs Sh Mool Chand and Ors.

Arjun Singh and Ors. Vs Pawan Kumar Gupta