The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a review petition challenging the disposal of a second appeal and an earlier judgment regarding the inherent jurisdiction to set aside a decree obtained via fraudulent suppression and false claim.
Review petition dismissed.
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.
S.B. Civil Review Petition No.8/2015
in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.272/2014
Uda S/o Deva Ji (D) through LR's Vs. Mangu Kharol (D) through LR's & Ors.
Order dt: 02/03/2015
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Review Petition No.8/2015 in S.B. Civil Second Appal No.272/2014
Uda S/o Deva Ji (since deceased) through LR's Vs. Mangu Kharol (since deceased) through LR's & Ors.
nd Date of Order ::: 02 March, 2015.
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Appearance:
Mr. K.C. Samdariya, for the review petitioners. Appellants/defendants.
BY THE COURT:
S.B. Civil Review Petition No.8/2015 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.272/2014 Uda S/o Deva Ji (D) through LR's Vs. Mangu Kharol (D) through LR's & Ors.
Order dt: 02/03/2015
2/3
learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No.3, Bhilwara, whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for setting aside the decree dated 06.02.1973 passed by the S.D.O., Bhilwara in Case No.66/1972, was decreed. This court while deciding the second appeal, had held as under: -
“Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The findings of the courts below respect to service of summons is that the summons in Suit No.66/1972 were not properly served on the defendants, Mangu, Raimal and Heera, who are plaintiffs in the present case. The findings based on relevant evidence even the process service, namely, DW.2-Nasir Beg, who was examined by the courts below, it was found that his statement stood demolished in the cross-examination and, therefore, findings arrived at about the service of summons on the defendants (plaintiffs in the present case) was not properly effected is a finding of fact. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants in the case of Mohd. Yunus (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the Calcutta High Court has held that the falsity of claim, perjured evidence, false representation of facts by themselves are not sufficient to set aside any decree in the absence of fraud preventing the plaintiff from placing his case before the Court. In order to maintain such suit, the plaintiff has to prove two things,
S.B. Civil Review Petition No.8/2015
in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.272/2014
Uda S/o Deva Ji (D) through LR's Vs. Mangu Kharol (D) through LR's & Ors.
Order dt: 02/03/2015
viz., fraudulent suppression of summons and also that the claim of that suit was false.”
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI),J
DJ/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of the High Court decided in the second appeal requires to be revised under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Whether the review petition is maintainable in view of the absence of apparent error in the previous order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Yunus (supra)Distinguished¶22
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Uda
Uda
Mangu
VINEET KOTHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
