Ram Sahu Vs Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court of India examined an appeal challenging an order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had allowed a review petition and deleted certain observations regarding possession of a disputed property. The dispute originated from a civil suit filed by the predecessor of the appellants seeking declaration of a sale deed as null and void and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession based on a will, while the defendants relied on an adoption deed and subsequent sale in their favour. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the High Court also dismissed the appeal but made observations in its judgment regarding the plaintiff’s possession based on evidence on record.
Subsequently, the defendants filed a review petition seeking deletion of the observations on possession. The High Court allowed the review and deleted the relevant paragraph, primarily on the ground that no specific issue regarding possession had been framed in the trial proceedings. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reiterated that review is limited to cases involving discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or similar sufficient reasons, and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The Court emphasized that an error apparent must be self-evident and not one that requires elaborate reasoning.
