Karnataka High Court
Ramu S/O. Babu Mangale vs Shantakka W/O Honagouda Patil on 23 February, 2023
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
RP No.100118 of 2014
C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REVIEW PETITION NO.100118 OF 2014
C/W
REVIEW PETITION NO.100080 OF 2014
IN REVIEW PETITION NO.100118 OF 2014 :
BETWEEN:
1. RAJUGOWDA
S/O BABASAHEB PATIL
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH
AGE: 46 YEARS,
ROHAN
OCC: SERVIE & AGRICULTURE
COURT OF
HADIMANI KARNATAKA
T DHARWAD
Date:
2023.02.24
16:23:07
+0530 R/O SHEDBAL-591 321,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SMT.CHANDRATAI
W/O BNARMAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SHEDBAL-581 321,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
3. TATYASAHEB BABASAHEB PATIL
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SHEDBAL-591 321,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVI S BALIKAI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.SHANTAKKA,
W/O HONAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NASALAPUR-591 224,
TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
-2-
RP No.100118 of 2014
C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
2. SMT.HOUSAKKA
W/O MAHAVEER PATIL,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. MAHAVEER RAJAGOUDA PATIL,
M/S. RAJ GARMENT STORES,
PADMAVATHI COLONY,
NEMINATH NAGAR,
EAST DHAMANI ROAD,
SANGLI-416 416 (MAHARASHTRA)
3. SMT.CHAMPAKKA W/O MAHADEV PATIL
AGE: 49 YEARS,
R/O. UNGAR BUDRUK-591 320,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
4. RAMU BABU MANGALE,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHEDBAL, TQ: ATHANI.
DIST: BELGAUM.
5. SMT.SHASHIKALA
W/O. NEMAGONDA PATIL,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MAHISHAL, TAL: MIRAJ
DIST: SANGLI, (MAHARASHTRA)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R.1 TO R3.
SRI BAHUBALI N.KANABARGI, ADV. FOR R4.
SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV. FOR R.5)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2014 PASSED IN RSA.NO.505/2004 AND
MODIFY THE SAID JUDGMENT SUITABLY AS PRAYED FOR HEREIN
ABOVE AND ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN REVIEW PETITION NO.100080 OF 2014 :
BETWEEN:
RAMU S/O. BABU MANGALE
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
RP No.100118 of 2014
C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
R/OL SHEDBAL-591 321,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI S BALIKAI, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.SHANTAKKA
W/O HONAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARUGERI-591 220,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.
2. SMT.HOUSAKKA
W/O. MAHAVIR PATIL
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. MAHAVIR RAJAGOUDA PATIL
M/S. RAJ GARMENT STORES,
PADMAVATI COLONY,
NEMINATH NAGAR,
EAST DHAMANI ROAD,
SANGLI-416 416, (MAHARASHTRA)
3. SMT.CHAMPKKA
W/O. MAHADEV PATIL
AGE: 49 YEARS,
R/O. UNGAR BUDRUK-591 320,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.P.KULKARNI, FOR R1-R3, ADV.)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2014 PASSED IN RSA.NO.355/2005 AND
MODIFY THE SAID JUDGMENT SUITABLY AS PRAYED FOR HEREIN
ABOVE AND ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 23.01.2023 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED AND MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
RP No.100118 of 2014
C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
ORDER
1. Petitioners in R.P.No.100118/2014 are appellant Nos.2 to 4 in RSA.No.505/2004. Petitioner in R.P.No.100080/2014 is the appellant in RSA.No.355/2005. These review petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment and order dated 11.03.2014 passed by this Court, dismissing the said regular second appeals on the premise that this Court dismissed the said appeals without considering the interim applications in I.A.No.1/2008 and I.A.No.1/2013 by the petitioners seeking production of additional evidence, which were pending at the time of disposal of the said appeals.
2. Brief facts for the purpose of these petitions are that, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.84/1988 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Athani, for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties namely, R.S.No.454/1A measuring 14 acres 39 guntas, RS.No.454/1B measuring 3 acres 2 guntas and -5- RP No.100118 of 2014 C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 R.S.No.330/3 measuring 7 acres 14 guntas and a house property bearing TPC.No.532 of Shedbal village claiming the same to be the joint family properties and that there was no partition in the family.
3. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 had filed written statement contending that there was an oral partition in the joint family. In the said oral partition, the land in Sy.No.335 totally measuring 16 acres 11 guntas was divided in which Eastern portion measuring 8 acres 6 gutnas was allotted to the share of Smt.Sumitrabai, the mother of the plaintiffs and the same was assigned with Sy.No.335/2. The remaining Western portion measuring 8 acres 5 guntas was allotted to the share of Chandrabai and was assigned with Sy.No.335/1. Though the partition was oral, the same was evidenced by the mutation entries vide ME.No.4466 dated 22.11.1951 duly certified on 16.07.1952. That upon the death of Smt.Sumitrabai on 23.11.1966, names of the plaintiffs who are her daughters entered in the revenue records vide ME.No.7266 duly -6- RP No.100118 of 2014 C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 certified on 16.08.1967. Subsequently, at the request of the plaintiffs, additional extent of 1 acre out of Western portion of land in of Sy.No.335/1B was given to their share as evidenced in ME.No.7932 dated 23.10.1969. The said two portions of the land totally measuring 9 acres 6 guntas are adjoining to each other and said two portions of the lands are consolidated and renumbered as Sy.No.335/1A+2/2. That the said sequence of events had taken place long back at an undisputed point of time showing that the plaintiffs have been given aforesaid land towards the share of their mother of Smt.Sumitrabai. Subsequently, plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 have sold their 2/3rd share of land to their sister plaintiff No.2 and her husband namely Mahaveer Rajugouda Patil in terms deed of sale dated 23.06.1983. In pursuance of which, mutation entry No.1544 has been duly effected on 30.06.1983. Thus, pursuant to the said purchase, plaintiff No.2 and her husband Mahaveer Rajugouda Patil became absolute owners of the entire land in Sy.No.335/1A+2/2 and their names have been entered in the revenue records as -7- RP No.100118 of 2014 C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 kabjadars/owners. Land measuring 9 acres 6 guntas owned and occupied by plaintiff No.2 and her husband was renumbered as Sy.No.335/1 and name of plaintiff No.2 has been shown as cultivator of 2/3rd portion while name of her husband Mahaveer Rajugouda Patil has been shown as cultivator to an extent of 1/3rd portion. Subsequently, plaintiff No.2 and her husband along with their children have sold the portion of 4 acres 4 guntas on the Eastern side of the said land in Sy.No.335/1 along with 2/3rd right to take water from the Bore-well to one Shamarao Siddappa Bandagar whose name has been entered in the revenue records vide ME.No.5605 dated 15.10.2001. Thereafter, even remaining portion of land in Sy.No.335/1 has also been sold away by plaintiff No.2 and her family.
4. The Trial Court despite production of document evidencing allotment of aforesaid 9 acres 6 guntas of land in favour of Smt.Sumitrabai towards her share decreed the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession allotting 1/4th shares in the suit properties. -8- RP No.100118 of 2014 C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 Defendant Nos.1 to 4/petitioners herein being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, filed regular appeal in R.A.No.39/2000 before the District Judge, Belagavi. The same was dismissed by order dated 19.02.2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court petitioner filed RSA 505/2004 before this court.
5. Case of the petitioner in R.P.No.100080/2014 (who is the appellant in RSA.No.355/2005 and defendant No.5 in O.S.No.84/1998) is that he had purchased the land in Sy.No.454/1B measuring 3 acres 2 guntas situated in Shedbal village from defendant Nos.1 & 2 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 06.07.1987, ever since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and his name having been entered in the revenue records. That plaintiffs disputed the said deed of sale on the premise that said land is an Inam land and the sale was effected within the prohibited period of 15 years. That the petitioner did not appear independently by engaging a -9- RP No.100118 of 2014 C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 separate Advocate in the Trial Court but appeared along with defendant Nos.1 to 4 with a common Advocate. But material evidence was not produced. As such the Trial Court held that purchase of land by the petitioner was invalid. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 do not dispute the sale deed. That the learned District Judge while dismissing his appeal in R.A.No.7/2003 observed that it is open to petitioner/defendant No.5 to raise plea regarding allotment of property purchased by him in the FDP proceedings. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of R.A.No.7/2003, the petitioner herein, who was defendant No.5 in the suit also filed an appeal in RSA.No.355/2005 challenging the finding to the extent of land purchased by him.
6. During pendency of the said regular second appeals in RSA.No.505/2004 C/w RSA.No.355/2005, the petitioners in R.P.No.100118/2014 filed application in I.A.No.1/2008 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional evidence on 10.06.2008. Along
- 10 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 with said application petitioners also produced documents namely (i) Revenue records in respect of land in Sy.No.335/1 from the year 1965-66 to 2005-06 six in numbers, (ii) Mutation register from 16.07.1952 till the date of the application along with typed copies. It is contended that in the said application that the said documents were not in dispute and they would throw light on the question as to whether there was earlier partition in the family and as to whether the said Smt.Sumitrabai mother of plaintiff had been given her share in the family landed properties. That no objections were filed by the respondents to the said application.
7. Similarly the petitioner in R.P.No.100080/2014 filed I.A No.1/2013 under Order XLI Rule 27 dated 17.06.2013 seeking production of documents namely (i) Deed of sale dated 06.07.1984 in respect of R.S.No.454/1B measuring 3 acres 2 guntas of Shedbal village executed by defendant No.2, (ii) Certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi,
- 11 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 in Case No.WGN/SR/26245, dated 12.02.1970, (iii) Certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi in Case No.WGN/RSR/9090 dated 16.05.1973. It is contended in the said application that there is no dispute with regard to the said documents and same would throw light on the quantum as to if there was violation of condition of re-grant.
8. That when the said regular second appeals in RSA.No.505/2004 along with a connected appeal in RSA.No.355/2005 had come for hearing the petitioners had brought to the notice of this Court regarding pendency of said applications and had contended that there was already a partition in the family and the mother of the plaintiff had been allotted share in the property as above and there was no violation of any condition. That this Court after hearing both the side pronounced the judgment on 11.03.2014 dismissing both the appeals confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. This Court had made
- 12 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 it clear that the purchaser could plead equity in FDP Court to the extent of the share of his vendor.
9. The present review petitions are filed seeking review of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court with regard to non consideration of material evidence like mutation entry, Ex.D.3, Ex.D.4, Ex.D.10 and Ex.D.11 and also non considering of the applications for additional evidence filed by the petitioners on 10.06.2008 and on 17.06.2013 respectively, which would conclusively prove that there was already a partition in the family and late Smt.Sumitrabai mother of the plaintiffs has been given Sy.No.335/1 measuring 9 acres 6 guntas and that the purchase of land in Sy.No.454/1A by defendant No.5 was valid and lawful.
10. This Court by order dated 08.11.2017 admitted the review petitions.
11. Sri Ravi S.Balikai, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the
- 13 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 memorandum of review petitions submitted that non consideration of interim applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment and order. He submits that, had the Court considered the said applications and permitted the appellants to produce additional documents, they would have clearly and conclusively established the factum of earlier partition that had taken place in the year 1951, in terms of which, Smt.Sumitrabi, the mother of the plaintiff had been given 9 acres 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.335/1 towards her share. That such document could not be produced by the petitioners before the Trial Court, as the same pertains the period after disposal of the suit. The said documents had come into existence at an undisputed point of time. Similarly documents sought to be produced by defendant No.5 would establish that there is no violation of re-grant condition. That non consideration of the applications has resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference.
- 14 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission;
(i) (2008) 12 SCC 762 between Hakam Singh Vs. State of Haryan.
(ii) (2006) 9 SCC 748 between Sanjivgoel Vs. Avtar S.Sandhu.
(iii) (2008) 8 SCC 511 between North Eastern Railway Administration Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das.
(iv) Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 between Shri Ram Sahu Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat decided on 03.11.2020.
13. Per contra, Sri S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing along with Sri Jagadish Patil, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that, non consideration of application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the records. As such, there is no justification in petitioners seeking review of the judgment. He submits that, the scope of review is very limited and constricted in that unless the petitioners prove and establish that the case would fall within the ambit of provisions of Order XLVII of CPC there cannot be
- 15 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 any ground to allow the said review petitions. He submits that, all that the petitioners are intending to do is to re- hearing of the appeal under the garb of review and the same cannot be permitted. Hence, seeks for rejection of the petition.
14. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the following judgments in support of his contention;
(i) (1997) 8 SCC 715 between Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others.
(ii) AIR 2005 SC 592 between Board of Control for Cricket India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others.
(iii) AIR 2006 Orissa 69 between Ghanashyam Sahoo Vs. Kendrapara Municipality and others.
(iv) AIR 2013 SC 3301 between Kamalesh Verma Vs. Mayawati.
(v) 2020 SCC Online SC 896 between Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs. And others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
16. It is not in dispute that the applications in I.A.No.1/2008 in RSA.No.505/2004 and I.A.No.1/2013 in
- 16 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 RSA.No.355/2005 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by the petitioners on 10.06.2008 and 19.06.2013 respectively have not been considered by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid regular second appeals in RSA.No.505/2004 C/w 355/2004. The question that would arise for consideration is, whether non consideration/disposal of aforesaid applications by this Court would amount to error or mistake apparent on the face of the record requiring consideration of review petitions.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC which are extracted hereunder;
"Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or
- 17 -RP No.100118 of 2014 C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.
[Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the judgments relied upon by him as noted herein above submitted that in all those judgments where the applications filed under order XLI Rule 27 of CPC had not been disposed of by the Courts while passing the final judgments, in the appeal the judgments have been set aside and the matters have been remanded back to pass appropriate orders after disposing of the applications in
- 18 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 accordance with law. Learned counsel specifically refers to paragraph Nos.6.1 to 8.2 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (supra), wherein, the Apex Court has referred to its earlier judgments with regard to scope and ambit of Section 114 of CPC read with order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Referring to the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and aforesaid judgments, the counsel submits that non consideration of applications filed for production additional evidence at the time of disposal of the appeal would amounts to mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, hence, seeks for allowing of the review petitions.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent drawing attention of this Court to paragraph No.9 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi and others (supra) submits that, an error which is not self evident and has to be deducted by process of reasoning cannot be called as error apparent on the face of the record. He submits that the petitioners may have to have recourse to
- 19 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 the appeal instead of seeking reopening of the entire case on the pretext of non consideration of the said application. Referring to the case of Board of Control for Cricket India (supra), he submits that, there is no sufficient reason and the petitioners have not established the grounds for allowing the review petitions. He further submits that, the error or the mistake has to be made out from the judgment and order which is sought to be reviewed and not from the applications which are not disposed of as in the present case.
20. The aforesaid provisions of law and the principles enunciated by the apex Court in the aforesaid judgment make it very clear that a review which is a creation of statue cannot be granted for mere asking unless it is established that the same is required to correct the error apparent on the face of the record.
21. To understand the meaning and scope of the term "record' it is appropriate to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case Moran Mar Basselios and
- 20 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 Chatholicos and another Vs. The Most Rev.Mar- Poulose Athenasius and others AIR 1954 SC 226 dealing with maintainability of a review petition at paragraph No.36 has held that;
"The proper procedure is to move the Court in whose judgment the error is alleged to have crept in. the application by way of review is to be made to the Court whose judgment is said to be founded on misconception as to the concession made by the Advocate appearing before it. A misconception by the Court of a concession made by the advocate or of the attitude taken up by the party appears to be good analogues to the grounds set forth in the first part of the review section and affords a good and cogent ground for review. There is no reason to construe the word "record" in a very restricted sense and include within that term only the document which initiates the proceedings, the pleadings and the adjudication and exclude the evidence and other parts of the record".
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Thus from the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that the term "record" cannot be restricted only to the judgment or the order but the entire material available on record needs to be looked at. If a Court while passing a judgment failed to take notice of a material made available on record including any applications
- 21 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 pending which may affect the outcome of the pronouncement, the same would amount "mistake apparent on the face of the record". In the case of Kishan Lal Sankla Vs. Mohan Lal and others AIR 1951 Ajmir 55 (2), it was held that; where the Appellate Court fails to take notice of the application for amendment of plaint and order passed thereon by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record can be rectified under Order XLVII CPC.
23. It is also to be noted that there is difference and distinction between "erroneous decision" and the "error apparent on the face of the record". What is not permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC is review on the ground of "erroneous decision", But what is permissible is review on the ground of "an error apparent on the face of the record".
24. An application for review would also maintainable if there exists 'sufficient reason" therefor.
- 22 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (Supra) at paragraph No.90 has held that;
"Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reasons therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Words "sufficient cause" in O.47 R.1 of Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking that doctrine "actus Curiae neminem gravabit."
25. Thus in view of aforesaid provisions of law and the legal principles non consideration of application in I.A.No.1/2008 and I.A.No.1/2013 seeking production of additional evidence by this Court while disposing of the appeals indeed amounts to a mistake or error apparent on the facts of the record.
26. There is yet another reason requiring attention, which is, one of the grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, seeking review of the judgment is that, discovery of new and an important matter or evidence
- 23 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014 which after exercises of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the decree passed or made.
27. Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC on the other hand enables the appellate Court to allow a party seeking production of additional evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined if he satisfies the conditions provided thereunder. One of which is that, the party seeking production of additional evidence establishes that notwithstanding exercise due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after exercise of due diligence be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed.
28. Thus, there is similarity of circumstances/ grounds enabling the Court to permit a party to seek review of the judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and for permitting a party for production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
- 24 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
29. In the instant case, very applications in I.A.No.1/2008 and I.A.No.1/2013 filed by the petitioners seeking production of documents are on the grounds of they not being able to produce the same before the decree was passed by the Trial Court. The non consideration of such an application by this Court at the time of final disposal of the appeals therefore would amount to mistake and an error apparent on the face of the record providing "sufficient reason" for allowing the review petition.
30. Thus as noted above, The maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one, becomes applicable in the case of this nature. For the aforesaid reasons following ;
ORDER Review petitions are allowed.
Registry to make necessary entries in this regard in the concerned register.
- 25 -
RP No.100118 of 2014C/W RP No.100080 of 2014
Post the regular second appeals in RSA.No.505/2004 and RSA.No.355/2005 for rehearing during the 2nd week of March, 2023.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24