2020 (11) TMI 555 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns High Court's Order, Restores Paragraph on Evidence Appreciation in Landmark Judgment.

SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. Versus VINOD KUMAR RAWAT & ORS.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC's order that granted the review petition and deleted para 20 of the judgment. The SC restored para 20, ... Review Petition - Restraint on transfer of disputed property - scope and ambit of the Court’s power under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - HELD THAT:- To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review. The High Court has clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the Court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. No ground as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been made out for the purpose of reviewing the observations made in para 20. It is required to be noted and as evident from para 20, the High Court made observations in para 20 with respect to possession of the plaintiffs on appreciation of evidence on record more particularly the deposition of the plaintiff (PW1) and his witness PW2 and on appreciation of the evidence, the High Court found that the plaintiff is in actual possession of the said house. Therefore, when the observation with respect to the possession of the plaintiff were made on appreciation of evidence/material on record, it cannot be said that there was an error apparent on the face of proceedings which were required to be reviewed in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the review application and deleting the observations made in para 20 of its order dated 10.12.2013 passed in First Appeal No.17.04.2005 in exercise of powers under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the circumstances the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior is hereby quashed and set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.2. Error apparent on the face of the record.3. Possession of the disputed property.4. Framing of issues by the trial court.5. Evidence and findings related to possession.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Scope of Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Court reiterated that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and must be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Court cited several precedents, emphasizing that review can be sought on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The Court held that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction as no ground under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was made out for reviewing the observations made in para 20 of the judgment.2. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:The Supreme Court discussed the concept of 'error apparent on the face of the record,' stating that it signifies an error evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination. The Court held that an error which is not self-evident and requires a long process of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court concluded that the High Court's observations in para 20 regarding possession were based on the appreciation of evidence and could not be considered an error apparent on the face of the record.3. Possession of the Disputed Property:The Supreme Court analyzed whether the High Court was justified in deleting para 20 of its judgment, which contained observations about the possession of the disputed property. The Court noted that the High Court made these observations based on the appreciation of evidence, including the deposition of the plaintiff and his witness. The Court also considered the fact that the defendants filed an application under Section 151 CPC for possession, which was later withdrawn, indicating that the defendants acknowledged the plaintiff's possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in deleting para 20 as the observations were made on the appreciation of evidence and not due to an error apparent on the face of the record.4. Framing of Issues by the Trial Court:The Supreme Court addressed the High Court's reasoning that no issue regarding possession was framed by the trial court. The Court held that non-framing of a specific issue on possession would not vitiate the findings if the parties were aware of the rival cases and led evidence on the issue. The Court noted that there were necessary pleadings and evidence regarding possession in the plaint and written statement. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to delete para 20 based on the non-framing of an issue was erroneous.5. Evidence and Findings Related to Possession:The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented by both parties regarding possession. The Court observed that the plaintiff led evidence to support his claim of possession, which was not effectively challenged by the defendants. The Court also noted that the defendants did not present any evidence to prove their possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's findings on possession were based on the appreciation of evidence and should not have been reviewed and deleted.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's order that allowed the review petition and deleted para 20 of the judgment. The Court restored para 20 of the judgment, concluding that the High Court had committed a grave error in exercising its review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Court held that the observations regarding possession were based on the appreciation of evidence and did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.