ANANTHA vs ANSHU CA 10779/13 02/12/13 [ Kirti JJ ]
[ SUPREME COURT ]
_*• Order 47, Rule 1 CPC Review Scope and ambit Review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on face of record, order/judgment does not call for review Mistake apparent on record means that mistake is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise Review does not permit rehearing of matter on merits High Court was not at all justified to review order dismissing revision petition Impugned order set aside
Relevant Paras:
9.A careful look at the impugned order would
show that the High Court had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the High Court is clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 08.06.2011. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
10. The order passed by the High Court on 08.06.2011, on a careful reading, shows that the High Court instead of repeating the reasons which it had
A careful look at the impugned order would
given in other revision petitions being CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010, while it was fully conscious of the fact that those civil revisions arose from a different suit followed its order in CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010. The High Court was fully conscious of the factual and legal position while it was considering the civil revision petitions filed by the present respondent No. 1. In the order upon which reliance was placed by the High Court while dismissing the civil revision petitions, the High Court had noted thus :-
“No doubt, no relief is sought for against the proposed party in the suit. The object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead a third party to the suit is that the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There must be some semblance of right to the proposed party. If the petitioner violates the building plan without leaving set backs, cellar etc., then certainly it would cause inconvenience to the neighbours. The proposed party is one of the neighbours. Therefore, to safeguard his interest, in view of the fact that he has got some semblance of right, though no relief is claimed against him, he would be necessary and proper party to come on record. That is why the trial Court rightly impleaded him as a party to the suit and I.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.”
N.ANANTHA REDDY ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.