Pranay vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

This review application is filed by the applicant/original plaintiff for reviewing the judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Second Appeal No.525/2019 wherein this Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and thereby dismissing the suit filed by the applicant against the non-applicants/original defendants for vacating the suit property mainly on the grounds impugned mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of para no. 22 of the present application.

The grounds are stated as below:-

Firstly, that the defence of the non-applicants was not discarded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court as there was no pleading to that effect. Rather because the concurrent findings which are based on the factual appreciation of the evidence by the Courts lower in hierarchy cannot be set aside merely because another view is possible on the same evidence.

Secondly, that the applicant was not aware of the whereabouts of the case of the non-applicants. Rather, the application under Right To Information Act, 2005 (RTI) was made per pendentiam of the civil suit in view of the defence raised by the non-applicants.

Thirdly, that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have discarded the document below Exh.96 as not a genuine document.

Fourthly, the document below Exh.97 is dated 28.06.2007 and the date of reference application is 27.07.2007, which is an improbable fact and

Lastly, that the artificial reasons has been created by the non-applicants for non-payment of taxes during the period from 2002 to 2007.

The contention of the applicant is that all the above grounds are not considered in the Second Appeal by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/original plaintiff and the learned counsel for the non-applicants/original defendants.

Sofaras, the ground (a) is concerned, it is factually incorrect since the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court was that there was no pleading in the written statement with regard to correspondence made by the non-applicants with the Amravati Municipal Corporation (AMC). Therefore, correspondence of the non-applicants with the AMC was not considered for want of pleadings. Hence, this Court by the impugned judgment and order under review observed that in the written statement filed by the non-applicants they have in substance pleaded broadly its case that they had made correspondence with the AMC. Hence, no substance is found in the ground (a) raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

With regards to ground (b), the ground raised by the applicant is nothing but his misconception. While answering the question pertaining to the defence of the non-applicants in their pleading, it was observed that the non-applicants in substance pleaded in the written statement and in order to show whether any prejudice is caused to the applicant on account of non-framing of the issues the finding was recorded that the applicant was very much aware of the case of the non-applicants so as to lead the case in proper direction by the applicant. Therefore, it has nothing to do with any communication between the applicant and the non-applicants about intimation of pendency of the dispute between them and the AMC. The thrust was to see whether the applicant was aware about the defence raised by the non-applicants in the written statement or not. Therefore, this ground raised by the applicant is without any substance.

With regards to ground (c), the rival contentions of both the parties are considered at length in the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, a reference to para no. 18 of the written statement is as well made. Therefore, this ground raised by the applicant does not stand tall.

With regard to ground (d), reference of application dated 27.07.2007 in communication dated 28.06.2007 is concerned, nothing was argued in this regard before this Court. Even otherwise if this document (Exh.97) is discarded, the fact remain that there were other correspondence between the non-applicant and the AMC coupled with the payment receipt of the year 2007 which is not in dispute. Therefore, in this regard I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.

Lastly, sofaras ground (e) is concerned, it is about the merit of the case. The detailed argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant itself indicates that, it is not merely an error to be corrected under review jurisdiction. Even if I am convinced with what has been argued, it will require detailed reasoning for tilting in favour of the applicant and will amount to substituting the view taken in the judgment and order under review which is beyond the purview of review. The view taken by this Court in the judgment and order under review may be erroneous but that may be a matter of appeal. Therefore, it cannot be considered under review jurisdiction.

Above all, if the applicant is aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by this Court, he can very well seek appropriate legal remedy. This Court cannot sit in appeal against its own order and cure the deformities as alleged by the applicant. If the applicant has any grievance, he can pursue the appropriate legal step as available to him.

Hence, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, the application has no merits and it is deserved to be dismissed.

Hence, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.