AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 415 wordsRam Prasanna Sharma, J
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.
By this review petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 28-11-2018 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 20 of 2005 on the ground that the appellant is entitled for specific performance of contract in respect of land ad-measuring 1 acre 32.6 decimal instead of decree of specific performance of land of Khasra No.536/23 area 6.65 acres situated at village Kurud, District Durg regarding which agreement to sell dated 7- 8-1978 has been entered into between original parties.
After going through the record of the First Appeal No. 20 of 2005 it is manifest that after appreciating all the facts and legal aspect of the matter, this Court has disposed of the appeal by recording finding that a decree for specific performance of land bearing survey No.536.23 area measuring 1 acre 32 point 6 decimal be granted in favour of the appellant and rest of the land is within the right of all four sons of Woman Rao Johi.
Considering all the grounds mentioned in the review petition which are in the nature of taking liberty to re-argue the case, there is no other ground showing any manifest error on the record and there is nothing that any new facts which could have been produced earlier but could not be produced 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. By this review petition, liberty to re-argue the entire case on merit afresh is not permissible because it would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal (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.