AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 3-9-2003 passed in I.A.No.155 of 2003 in O.S.No.471 of 1983 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judge reviewed his own order passed on 29-07-2003.
The petitioner is the plaintiff and the first respondent is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.471 of 1983. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the defendants and when the case was coming up for arguments, the first defendant filed I.A.No.155 of 2003 under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC to condone the delay in filing the registered sale deed dated 3-11-1964 and to receive the same on his behalf. The plaintiff resisted the said application.
3.The learned Additional Chief Judge, on hearing counsel for both the parties, passed the order dated 29-7-2003.
The first defendant did not choose to question the order dated 29-7-2003 and allowed the same to reach finality. Subsequently, the learned Additional Chief Judge took up suo motu review of the order dated 29-7-2003 and heard counsel for both the parties and allowed I.A.No.155 of 2003 by order dated 03-09-2003. Assailing the said order, the plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the trial Court has not assigned any valid reasons for reviewing the order dated 29-7-2003 passed in I.A.No.155 of 2003. He further submits that the trial Court went beyond the scope of the review contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Learned Counsel for the first respondent-defendant No.1 submits that the trial Court having found that the earlier order dated 29-7-2003 is not in accordance with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C., reviewed the same and passed the impugned order by allowing the application and in such a situation, the impugned is not required to be interfered with.
Learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. by order dated 29-7-2003 on two reasons. Firstly, there is no power to the Court under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to condone the delay in receiving the documents. Secondly, the defendant No.1 has not offered sufficient reasons for not producing the original registered sale deed dated 3-11-1964 at the time of recording the evidence. The learned Chief Judge took up the suo motto review of the order dated 29-7-2003. The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is well-settled in catena of decisions. Error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 must be such which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched as held in the decision of Supreme Court in LILY THOMAS v UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS AIR 2000 S.C. 1650. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, that the 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 C.P.C. The review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and it must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two options. The limitation of powers of Court under order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is similar to the jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, it has been held by the Supreme Court that under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error, which is not self-confident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review undner Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.
The learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. on 28-7-2001 on two grounds. One of the grounds was that the first defendant had not offered sufficient reasons for not filing the document prior to the commencement of the trial. When such is the case, the learned Additional Chief Judge is not justified in reviewing the said order and allowing the application. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 3-9-2003 passed in I.A.No.155 of 2003 in O.S.No.471 of 1983 and consequently, the order dated 29-7-2003 passed in I.A.No.155 of 2003 in O.S.No.471 of 1983, stands restored.