AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking review of the judgment dated 03.09.2021 passed by this Court vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioners/original appellants was allowed as under:
In view of the afore observation, there is merit in the instant appeal, and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment(s) and decree(s) impugned before this Court is set aside. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. The suit of the plaintiff(s) is dismissed. It being barred by law. However, the impugned verdict of 06.06.1997, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. is modified to the extent that the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, is appointed as caretaker and receiver of the suit property, owned by Guru Sahib, up to the relevant statutory process, if now permissible, being completed /concluded. The contesting litigants and also directed to, alongwith theirs handing over the entire suit property to the D.C. Kullu, hence, append therewith the completest signatured apposite inventories. Subsequently, the D.C. Kullu shall, with the assistance of Sikh scholars to be chosen by him, hence ensure the maintenance and dedicated upkeep of the hallowed precincts rather wherein the sacred book, is installed. He shall also ensure the regular dedicated observances of all rituals appertaining to the Sikh Religion. Moreover, he shall keep regular audited accounts qua salaries, and, also qua the revenue earned from the suit property. In addition, he shall with the assistance of Sikh Sevadars/scholars, shall ensure the future renovations of the shrine, from the incomes realized from the suit property. Necessarily, all licenses/lessees concerned, shall hereforth attorn to the D.C. Kullu. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
It has been asserted that the Court issued various directions/orders after holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 29 of Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925. This could not have been done because it was not permissible to modify the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu after allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and dismissing the suit. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and directions issued by this Court be set aside.
I have heard Mr R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate assisted by M/s Arjun Lall, Sanjivani Sood, Tamanna Basoli and Vidur Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr T.S. Bhogal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Harshit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
Mr R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that this Court was exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Once the Court concluded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, it ceased to have jurisdiction to pass any order/direction. The orders/directions issued by this Court while allowing the appeal virtually amounted to dismissal of the appeal and decreeing of the suit, which is contrary to the finding recorded by this Court that the suit be dismissed. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment passed by this Court be reviewed.
Mr T.S. Bhogal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the review only lies if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. There is no error apparent on the face of the record, and the appellant has filed an appeal in the garb of a review petition. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Mr Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No. 8, submitted that the Court had inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to pass any direction for the preservation of the property. The directions were issued by the Court to preserve the property and cannot be faulted. The suit could not have been dismissed after holding that the civil Court had no jurisdiction and the plaint was required to be returned/rejected in terms of Order 7 of the CPC. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. He relied upon the the judgments in A.S. Raghavendra vs. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited 2024SCC Online SC 3121, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni vs Dev Raj Sharma 2026: NCHHC:29439, Nishant Sharma vs. Keshav Dutt Shreedhar 2026 NCHHC 31612 and Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others 2013(8) SCC 320 in support of his submission.
I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
The scope of the review was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, as under at page 342:
15.1The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. (Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170).
15.2Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. (Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389).
15.3In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. (Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715.)
15.4The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. (Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.)
15.5The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. (Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663). Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors. (Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909).
16.To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.
17.Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time the original decree or order was passed.
17.2Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. (Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881: (1955) 1 SCR 1104). Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. (T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905: AIR 1954 SC 440). An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137).
17.3Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories. (Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42: AIR 1954 SC 526).
A similar view was taken in A.S. Raghavendra (supra), Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni (supra), Nishant Sharma (supra) and Kamlesh Verma (supra).
A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court shows that the Court had concluded that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law. Therefore, the judgment and decree impugned before this Court were ordered to be set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 251, that once the Court concludes that it had no jurisdiction, it should not give any findings on the merit. It was observed: -
“13.The last point urged is that when the civil court had no jurisdiction over the suit, the High Court could not have dealt with the cross-objection filed by the appellant with respect to the adjustment of a certain amount paid by the respondent. This contention is correct. When the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, it cannot decide any question on the merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and, concluding that it had no jurisdiction over the matter, had to return the plaint.”
It was held by the Karnataka High Court in B.S. Suryanarayana Rao v. Hidayuthunnissa Begum, 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 143: (2009) 1 Kant LJ 8 that if the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, it can only order the return of the plaint for presentation before proper forum or dismiss the suit in limine on the ground of maintainability/want of jurisdiction and any other order passed is coram non judice.
Therefore, it was impermissible for the Court to record any findings on the merits or issue any direction after it had concluded that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred, and the judgment passed by this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The directions issued by the Court appointing the Deputy Commissioner as caretaker and receiver of the property and to the litigants to hand over the entire property to D.C. Kullu, appointment of Sikh Scholars by D.C. Kullu, ensuring the maintenance and dedicated upkeep of hallowed precincts, observance of all rituals, renovation of the shrine and licenses attorned to D.C Kullu were beyond jurisdiction and could not have been issued. Further, the suit could not have been dismissed after holding that the Court had no jurisdiction and the plaint was to be returned as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Athmanathswami Devasthanam (supra).
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Para 23 of the judgment is modified and the words “The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed” are substituted by the words “The plaint is ordered to be returned”. The words, “However, the impugned verdict…...D.C Kullu” are ordered to be deleted. The necessary correction be made out.
The present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.