AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.
The review petition has been preferred by the petitioners to seek review of the judgment dated 14.11.2019 passed in SA No.782 of 1998 on the
ground that there is no evidence of Rajendra Shankar Shukla being heir of Late Brijrani Bai except opening line of his deposition that “She was his
Buwa†- paternal aunt without particulars of father and brothers of Late Brijrani Bai. Such statement does not prove him heir of Brijrani Bai hence
the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are perverse in the absence of pleading and proof thereof. According to the petitioners, the said Will
and heir-ship of Rajendra Shankar Shukla not having been pleaded and proved the eviction suit between landlord and tenant has abated on death of
Late Brijrani Bai.
On going through the record of second appeal, it is evident that this Court after hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties decided the
issue by delivering a detailed judgment and by placing reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. Moreover, no question of law was
framed, on the point now raised, at the time of admitting the second appeal. It is important to bear in mind that the suit for eviction was filed on
14.11.1971 i.e., about 48 years ago.
There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new
facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law 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 the Code of Civil Procedure.
It appears that the petitioners by presentation of this review petition seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of
the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law.
It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which
would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar
Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others,
AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech
Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651.
As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.