Shakuntala Sharma vs Jeteinder Sharma & Ors.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

REVIEW PET. 540/2026 (for review of Judgment dt. 13.10.2026) & CM APPL. 77981/2026 (exemption) in W.P.(C)8947/2024 (Disposed off case)

The present Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 13.10.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 8947/2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

Succinctly stated, the Petitioner is the mother of Respondent No.1 and mother-in-law of Respondent No.2. The dispute between the parties concerns two residential properties, namely, Flat No. 58-B and Flat No. 59-C, situated at C-4D, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is borne from record that the Petitioner has been residing in Flat No. 58-B for several years (claiming that her late husband was the erstwhile owner of the flat) and also claims ownership over Flat No. 59-C, in which Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are residing.

Alleging ill-treatment, harassment, threats and failure to maintain her, the Petitioner had approached the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking eviction of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from Flat No. 59-C. The District Magistrate, by order dated 20.02.2024, directed Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to vacate the said property.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the said order before the Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed by order dated 16.04.2024 and the eviction order was set aside. The learned Appellate Authority, while doing so, observed that the allegations of ill-treatment and non-maintenance were not sufficiently substantiated and that the parties were already embroiled in civil litigation concerning the properties. At the same time, with a view to safeguarding the interests of the Petitioner, the learned Appellate Authority permitted her to choose the flat in which she wished to reside and contemplated an exchange of the two flats if she chose to shift to Flat No. 59-C.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 8947/2024.

The principal contentions of the petitioner were that, being the owner of Flat No. 59-C (though she is not residing therein) she was entitled to seek eviction of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therefrom, that the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment had not been properly appreciated; and that the learned Appellate Authority had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal in directing an arrangement concerning the two flats. Reliance was also placed upon the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Suit directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to title and possession of the properties.

This Court, after considering the rival submissions and the material on record, dismissed the writ petition by judgment under review dated 13.10.2026.

Now, the present Review Petition has been filed essentially raising the same contentions on which observations have already been given by this Court.

The principal contention raised is that Flat No. 59-C is separately registered in the name of the Petitioner and, according to her, does not form part of the properties involved in CS(OS) 786/2022. On this basis, it is urged that pursuing eviction proceedings in respect of Flat No. 59-C could not amount to an attempt to alter the status quo directed in the civil proceedings. It is further contended that however, the learned Appellate Authority has travelled beyond the scope of the appeal by introducing a conditional arrangement concerning Flat No. 58-B, though the appeal before it arose from the eviction order concerning Flat No. 59-C. The petitioner submits that she had never consented to any exchange of the two properties and that the learned Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to introduce such an arrangement.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that no error apparent on the face of record has been demonstrated. This Court has passed a reasoned judgment, and the present review petition is liable to be dismissed as the same seeks re-appreciation of facts and reconsideration of the same issues already examined which is impermissible under review jurisdiction.

At the outset, it is well settled that the power of review is an extremely limited jurisdiction. A review proceeding cannot be equated with an appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to correction of “an error apparent on the face of the record” or other grounds specifically recognized therein. Further an error apparent on the face of the record must be an error which is self-evident and does not require a long-drawn process of reasoning. An error which can be established only after an elaborate examination of the material and where twoviews are reasonably possible cannot ordinarily be characterised as an error apparent on the face of the record. [Ref: Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury : (1995) 1 SCC 170]

Examined in the aforesaid light, the grounds disclosed in the review petition do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.

This Court has already noted, in the judgment under review, that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are intended to protect the life and property of senior citizens and to enable them to live with dignity and security, but also observed that such proceedings cannot be treated as a substitute for adjudication of disputed questions of title or as a means of resolving an otherwise pending civil dispute concerning the rights of family members in immovable property. This Court specifically noted the arguments that, the Respondent No. 1 claims rights in the Flat No. 58B (in which the petitioner was residing) by way of a Will drawn by his father/Late Sh. Bhagirath Sharma, while the Flat No. 59C (in which the Respondent No. 1 and 2 are residing), are owned by the Petitioner. This Court further noted that the parties were involved in proceedings in CS(OS) 786/2022 concerning the properties left behind by late Shri Bhagirath Sharma and that the said proceedings involved, inter alia, disputes concerning the ownership of the properties and the validity of the Will relied upon by Respondent No.1. It was, in these circumstances, held that the learned Appellate Authority was justified in taking note of the pending civil proceedings and in declining to employ the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act for determination of questions which properly fell for adjudication before the competent civil court.

The Court also considered the factual position that the parties had admittedly been residing separately in the two flats with separate kitchens since 2005 and that the petitioner had not placed sufficient material to substantiate the allegations of ill-treatment or harassment. The Court further noted the contentions relating to the rental income received by the Petitioner and the fact that Respondent No.1 was stated to be looking after the expenses of the Petitioner's younger son and his family. In the aforesaid factual context, it was held that no case for eviction of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had been made out.

With regard to the arrangement directed by the learned Appellate Authority, this Court specifically considered the Petitioner's reliance on the status-quo order dated 13.12.2022. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court, had clearly observed that the if the petitioner seeks to rely upon the status quo order, she can always choose to not alter the possession status of any property and continue to reside in Flat No. 58B, as only an option has been proposed by the learned Appellate Authority, keeping in mind the existing civil disputes between the parties. It was further expressly clarified that all questions concerning title, possession, validity of the Will and the respective rights and claims of the parties were to be examined in the appropriate civil proceedings and that nothing stated in the judgment was to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of those claims.

Ultimately, this Court held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 did not permit the Court to substitute its own assessment for that of the Appellate Authority merely because a different conclusion could conceivably have been reached.

Thus, evidently, the question as to the nature of the rights claimed by the parties in respect of the two properties, the effect of the pending civil proceedings and the relevance of the status-quo order were all matters and issues which were before the Court and were considered while deciding the writ petition.

The petitioner may disagree with the conclusions ultimately reached by this Court; however, such disagreement does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The contention that a different conclusion ought to have been reached on the basis of the documents relating to the properties or the pending civil proceedings would, at the highest, constitute a ground for appeal, if otherwise available in law. The same however does not warrant exercise of the limited jurisdiction of review.

No ground contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for review of the judgment dated 13.10.2026 is made out.

The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.