Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Fareed Jehan Begum vs Union Of India (Uoi), South Central ... on 12 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(5)ALT457
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Petitioner herein instituted O.S. No. 27 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad seeking a declaration that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and for the relief of possession. The matter was contested by the defendant therein denying the allegations. After full length trial, the trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit to the extent of declaration sought by the plaintiff, however dismissed the suit as far as the relief of possession is concerned, by judgment dated 31-8-1992. As against the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1992 made by the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff carried the matter before this Court by way of C.C.C.A. No. 4 of 1984. The said C.C.CA.No. 4 of 1984 finally fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao and myself (Dr. MBN, J.). After hearing the parties at length, the appeal in C.C.C.A. No. 4 of 1984 was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 30-7-1992.
2. As against the dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench as indicated above by judgment dated 30-7-1992, the present Review C.M.P. is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC seeking to review the judgment dated 30-7-1992 rendered by the Division Bench on the following grounds:
(1) When once it was found that the area of Ac.15.38 cents (suit land) is over and above the land that has been leased out to the Railways and that the Railways were given possession of only Ac. 109.15 gts. Of land by the Cantonment Board, the learned Division Bench ought to have allowed the appeal as it is the definite case of the Railways both in the pleadings as well as in evidence.
(2) The learned Division Bench failed to see that the very setting up of the plea of adverse possession by the Railways could conclusively establish that the suit lands were certain, localized and identified and that it is not open to the Court to set up a different case for the railways which was never pleaded by the Railways.
(3) The learned Division Bench failed to see that when once plea of adverse possession set up by the Railways was rejected, the only inevitable result that should follow is a decree for possession.
(4) The learned Division Bench erred in stating that the Joint Survey Report is not admissible in evidence as no person connected with it was examined. The learned Division Bench failed to see that in view of Section 35 of the Evidence Act it is admissible in evidence and especially when it was not disputed by the Railways.
3. Before adverting to the contentions raised now in the Review C.M.P., I think it is appropriate to record certain aspects of this litigation.
4. The judgment in C.C.C.A. No. 4 of 1984 was rendered by the Division Bench consisting of Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao and myself on 30-7-1992. Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao continued to be a Judge of this Court upto July, 1994 and on reaching superannuation Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao retired in the month of July, 1994. The Rev. C.M.P. though seems to have been filed in the year 1993, however, the same surfaced only in the year 1998 after lapse of more than five years from the date of its institution and fell for consideration for the first time before a Division Bench of this Court consisting myself (Dr. MBN, J.) and Justice Y.V. Narayana. On 29-7-1998 the Division Bench consisting of myself and Justice Y.V. Narayana directed the Rev. C.M.P. to be posted next week and further directed the Registry to print the name of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the cause list. On 3-8-1998 the Rev. C.M.P. fell for consideration before another Division Bench consisting of Justice S.V. Maruthi and Justice T. Ranga Rao. However, the learned Division Bench directed the Rev. C.M.P. to be posted before the Division Bench consisting of myself and Justice Y.V. Narayana. On 12-8-1998 the Rev. C.M.P. came up before the Division Bench consisting of myself and Justice Y.V. Narayana. On a preliminary hearing of the issue and following the provisions made under Order 47 Rule 5 of CPC and as per the convention being followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that when a review petition is filed seeking to review a judgment rendered by a Division Bench, in the event of one of the learned Judges of the said learned Division Bench retiring from service or no more survives, that review petition has to be posted before the other learned Judge, who was a Member of the said learned Division Bench that rendered the judgment in the matter, and is continuing as a Judge of this Court we desired the Rev. C.M.P. to be posted before me (Dr. MBN, J.). As per the above direction of the Division Bench, the matter was posted before me.
5. Since then the matter is coming up before me for consideration. The matter was adjourned several times in the absence of any representation on behalf of the petitioner. Though the Rev. C.M.P. was filed in the year 1993, it has surfaced for the first time only in the year 1998 i.e., after lapse of five years from the date of its institution. It is not known why the petitioner had not taken steps for a period of more than five years in getting the Rev. C.M.P. listed at an early date. This would speak volumes about the efforts of the petitioner in not getting the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the year 1992 reviewed as early as possible. However, when the matter is taken up for consideration to-day, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is present.
6. I have heard Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and Smt. C.V. Vinitha Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, basing on the grounds raised in the review petition as extracted above, contended that there is apparent error on the face of the record and it is a fit case for reviewing the judgment. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no apparent error on the face of the record and therefore, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench requires no review.
7. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC provides for the review of the judgments, but the scope of such review is very limited. Review of judgments may be allowed on three grounds, namely-
(i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made, or
(ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) for any other sufficient reason (which has been interpreted to be analogous to the other reasons specified above).
The grounds urged in the review petition as extracted above involve appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The review lies only on the three grounds stated above without going into the facts of the case and the evidence let in by the parties. The grounds urged in the review petition already attracted the attention of the learned Division Bench and they were discussed elaborately and answered against the review petitioner/appellant. None of them would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 30-7-1992 rendered by the Division Bench.
8. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. No costs.