Allahabad High Court
Preeti Tandon vs Mohit Tandon on 13 January, 2023
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 1 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 5 of 2023 Applicant :- Preeti Tandon Opposite Party :- Mohit Tandon Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Misra Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2023:
1. Heard Mr. Tejpal Gautam, learned counsel for the review applicant.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing review application.
3. The application is supported with an affidavit, in which the reasons for the delay have been explained sufficiently.
4. Accordingly, application is allowed. Delay, if any, in moving review application is hereby condoned.
Order on memo of review application:
5. By means of the instant review application, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit which is being filed in support of this application, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to review the order dated 07.12.2017 read with recall of the order dated 26.05.2017 restoring the Review petition on its original number in the interest of justice.
Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may kindly deem fit, jut and proper under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice may also be passed in favour of the applicant / petitioner."
6. The order dated 26.05.2017 was passed dismissing the Review Petition Defective No.89 of 2010, when the case was called out in the revised list and no request had been made for passing over or adjournment of the case.
7. The application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 26.05.2007 was also rejected by this Court on the ground that it was filed by a newly engaged counsel, who was not appearing in the original proceedings, the order passed wherein was sought to be reviewed. The review has been sought on the ground that the application for recall of the order dated 26.05.2017 had been filed by a counsel without the petitioner's knowledge and it was filed stating incorrect facts, without knowledge of the petitioner.
8. The petitioner has not disputed that the review application bears her signatures but her case is that she has signed on blank papers.
9. The litigant while making signatures on papers is required to act in a responsible manner with due diligence. In case the petitioner had signed on the blank papers, she cannot be allowed to subseqeuntly turn around and disown the facts averred on those papers. The grounds of review are vague and do not make out an error apparent on the face of the record committed by this Court.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in (1995) 1 S.C.C. 170, Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt.) and (1997) 8 S.C.C. 715, Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others has held that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is very limited and this jurisdiction can be invoked only, if there is mistake or error apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, there is no error apparent on the face of record of the order under review.
11. The review application lacks merit and, it is accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
Ram.