High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 05 DEL CK 1897

Jai Nath Yadav & Anr. vs Somnath Yadav @ Shobh Nath Yadav & Anr.

Delhi High Court, Principal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 8 May 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J · V. Kameswar Rao, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
RFA(COMM) 678/2025, REVIEW PET. 211/2026 and CM APPL. 31070/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 246 words

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 31071/2026 (for exemption)

1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 678/2025, REVIEW PET. 211/2026 and CM APPL. 31070/2026

3.

This petition has been filed by the appellant under Section 114, read with order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 24.03.2026 [the ‘impugned judgment’].

4.

This Court vide the impugned judgment had upheld the Trial Court’s findings in its judgment dated 13.10.2025, that the Petitioner (i.e., Appellant) was only able to prove the payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- [Rupees Eight Lakhs only] to the Respondent through bank transfer and was unable to substantiate its claim for payment of Rs. 24,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs only] in cash to the Respondent, out of the alleged payment of Rs. 32,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs only] said to have been made by the Appellant, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

5.

Having perused the grounds raised in the review petition, it is evident that the Appellant seeks a re-hearing of the matter on the merits under the guise of review. The grounds raised essentially seek a re-appreciation of the findings already rendered.

6.

No ground raised therein shows any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the findings returned in the judgment warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction.

7.

We therefore find no grounds to review the judgment, and the same is dismissed.