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

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, ruling that the HC erred in its review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observations on possession were based on evidence appreciation and not an error apparent on the face of the record.

---

---

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.

---