Civil review against dismissal of a second appeal over a partition suit. The court held that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record, that no such error existed, and dismissed the review application, reiterating that substantial questions of law alone sustain section 100 CPC jurisdiction.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 86 of 2024
1
2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Naman Soni, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :
------
04/23.08.2024 This review application is preferred against the judgment dated 28.06.2024 passed in Second Appeal No.571 of 2018 by this Court.
2. Review petitioners’ suit for partition was dismissed by both the courts below against which they preferred Second Appeal which was admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law vide order dated 12.10.2022.
3. This Court vide judgment dated 28.06.2024 dismissed the Second Appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff has preferred the instant civil review.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that in view of the fact that the appeal had been admitted to be heard on question of fact of partition, it was incumbent on part of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence on the said question of fact of partition.
5. Law is settled that in Second Appeal, the High Court cannot enter into re-appreciation of evidence and interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the learned trial court and the first appellate court, unless such findings are perverse. The Second Appeal does not lie on question of fact or of law. “The existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C.
6. In the present case, the substantial question of law has been answered by this Court in para 16 – 20 of the judgment.
7. This Court in exercise of review jurisdiction, cannot enter into merit
3
Anit
of its earlier judgment. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is apparent mistake on the face of record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The points that have been raised in the present Civil Review application, do not come within the meaning of error apparent on the face of record, to exercise review jurisdiction.
The Civil Review application is shorn of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )
4
2 issues framed by the court
Does the review application reveal an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dismissing Second Appeal No. 571 of 2018?
Can a High Court in second appeal re-appreciate evidence on a question of fact such as partition between parties?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yugeshwar Pandey and others (14 petitioners)
Most. Bimla Devi and others (90 opposite parties)
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
