SUBMITTED BY: -

SOUGATA BANIK

ROLL- 0007

B.COM LLB

Shri Ram Sahu (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors.

Judges Name: Hon’ble Judges Ashok Bhushan J & M.R. Shah J

Order Dated: 03.11.2020

The Facts of The Case Are as Follows:

Shri Ram Sahu, the predecessor of the appellants herein, filed Civil Suit No.04A of 2005 in the
Learned Trial Court against the respondents herein original defendants for declaration of a
registered Sale Deed dated 25.03.1995 executed by original defendant no.3 in favor of original
defendant nos. 1 & 2 regarding House No.28/955 (previous House No.3/1582), located in Sube
Ki Payga, Jiwajiganj, Lashkar, as null and void, and for a permanent injunction prohibiting
defendants 1 and 2 from transferring the disputed property to any other individual. Based on a
will executed in his favor by one Chhimmabai on 19.10.1993, the original plaintiff Shri Ram
Sahu asserted possession of the disputed land. The defense had proven, according to the
Learned Trial Court, that defendant No.3 was adopted by Ghasilal on 26.01.1985 and later
registered by Chhimmabai via Adoption Deed dated 13.05.1992. The initial complainant, who is
also the defendant, in this case, filed the First Appeal No. 241 of 2005 with the High Court. The
High Court granted the review request and ordered the deletion of paragraph 20 of the judgment
and order dated 10.12.2013 in First Appeal No.241 of 2005, stating that the question of
ownership of the disputed property was not presented before the Learned Trial Court. The
Learned Trial Court did not raise a possession question until the First Appellate Court, and the
Learned Trial Court did not even raise a possession issue.

The Supreme Court debated whether the High Court was justified in approving the appeal
application on the aforementioned grounds under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC in
the facts and circumstances of the case.

Supreme Court held:

The Supreme Court explained that the term "review" means "to look at something again with the
intent of correcting it." The court stated that review is a statutory development that cannot be
refused. The court held, based on a number of precedents, that the power of review is not an
innate one. It must be granted by statute, either explicitly or by required implication. The court
clarified the scope of Section 114 of the CPC, holding that a court can only review an order
based on the criteria set out in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A review application is more restrictive
than an appeal, and the court of review has jurisdiction only up to the definite limit set out in
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Powers of review cannot be used as an intrinsic right, nor can an
appealing power be used as a power of review. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court
had overstepped its bounds and erred in removing para 20 in the exercise of its power under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The court found that the High Court made a serious mistake and that the
impugned order is invalid. It went on to say that the powers of review under Section 114 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, as well as Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot be
used as an intrinsic or appellate force.

As a result, the court granted the appeal and quashed the impugned order of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, dated 14.07.2017, in Review Petition No.465 of 2015 in First
Appeal No.241 of 2005.