Samir Kumar Bose vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Alleging fraud and misrepresentation committed by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2584 of 2008, the applicants in the instant Civil Review Petition has sought review of order dated 11.06.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2584 of 2008.

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the applicants taking the Court through the memorandum of the instant Civil Review Petition, submits that a fraud was played upon the Court and this Court was misled to pass order dated 11.06.2008.

Vehemently opposing the plea taken by the applicants, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that the applicants have raised a plea which would require adjudication on the facts. The learned Senior counsel submits that the allegation levelled by the applicants in the instant civil review petition are disputed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6. A review petition is not maintainable on a plea based on disputed questions of fact.

A perusal of order dated 11.06.2008 discloses that the applicants were not party in the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 2584 of 2008. The writ petitioners had approached the Court seeking a direction upon the registering authority to accept the sale deed produced for registration and this Court vide order dated 11.06.2008 ordered that without insisting on production of "No Objection Certificate", the registering authority shall accept the sale deed produced for registration.

Considering the various pleas raised by the applicants in the instant civil review petition, I am of the opinion that the plea raised by the applicants cannot be adjudicated in the present proceeding. Moreover, for adjudicating the plea of fraud raised by the applicants, the genuineness of the power of attorney as well as the authority of the writ petitioners to execute sale deed have to be examined and this would require appreciation of evidence led by the parties, which is not permissible in the review proceeding.

However, in view of the plea of fraud and misrepresentation raised by the applicants, a liberty is reserved with them to challenge the sale deed which comprises the land allegedly belonging to them. The order passed by this Court dated 11.06.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 2584 of 2008 would not come in the way of the applicants for challenging the validity of the sale deed which has since been registered by virtue of order dated 11.06.2008 passed by this Court.

The instant review petition is dismissed at this stage however, with the aforesaid liberty to the applicants.