The Chhattisgarh High Court's recent dismissal of a review petition underscores the narrow scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court reiterated that review is not a substitute for appeal and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided on merits, particularly when the Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the original judgment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Singh, entered into an agreement to sale dated 14.12.1993 (Exhibit P-2) with the vendors (Respondents No. 1 to 3) for the purchase of a building situated at Shailendra Nagar, Raipur. The petitioner paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 8,10,500 and was put in possession of the property. However, the vendors subsequently mortgaged the property to Union Bank of India (Respondent No. 4) as security for a loan advanced to M/s Raipur Luggage Private Limited. The bank initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, which culminated in a decree dated 27.09.2000 for Rs. 48,93,700.43. The property was auctioned and purchased by Satyaprakash Jhunjhunwala (Respondent No. 5) on 12.01.2004 for Rs. 36,26,000.
Key Facts
- 14.12.1993: Agreement to sale executed between petitioner and vendors for Rs. 8,10,500; petitioner put in possession.
- Post-1993: Vendors mortgaged the property to Union Bank of India without disclosing the agreement to sale.
- 27.09.2000: DRT decreed recovery of Rs. 48,93,700.43 in favour of the bank.
- 13.07.2004: Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the DRT decree.
- 12.01.2004: Property auctioned and purchased by Respondent No. 5 for Rs. 36,26,000.
- 25.06.2002: Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 11-A/2011 seeking declaration of title, injunction, and specific performance of the agreement.
Procedural History
- 21.06.2011: Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the petitioner failed to pay the requisite court fee for specific performance and that the suit was barred by limitation.
- 05.04.2018: Co-ordinate Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed First Appeal No. 142/2011, affirming the trial court’s findings. The Court held that the claim was barred by jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and by limitation.
- 14.05.2018: Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 10499/2018) against the High Court’s judgment.
- Post-14.05.2018: Petitioner filed the present Review Petition No. 60 of 2018 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought review of the judgment dated 05.04.2018 in First Appeal No. 142/2011, contending that the Court failed to consider his entitlement to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as he was in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement to sale.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court’s dismissal of the appeal, without considering the petitioner’s entitlement to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the Co-ordinate Bench erred in not considering Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which protects the possession of a transferee in pursuance of an agreement to sale. Since the petitioner was put in possession of the property after paying the entire consideration, his possession ought to have been protected against the respondents, particularly Respondents No. 4 and 5. The failure to consider this provision amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review.
For the Respondent (No. 5)
Counsel for Respondent No. 5 argued that the impugned judgment was rendered after a thorough consideration of the evidence, including the applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioner’s claim was dismissed on merits, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Special Leave Petition reinforced the finality of the judgment. Thus, no error apparent on the face of the record existed to justify review.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which permits review only in three circumstances:
- Discovery of new and important matter or evidence that was not within the petitioner’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier.
- Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason.
The Court emphasized that review is not an opportunity to re-agitate issues already decided or to re-appreciate evidence. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 753, wherein it was held:
"17. We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court in the instant case and considered rival submissions on the point. It is well settled that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the error must be self-evident. Tested on this parameter, the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct. The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in appeal over the earlier decision dated 17.02.2017. Even assuming that there was no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier judgment, the parties could be left to challenge the decision in an appeal. But the review was not a proper remedy at all. In our view, the High Court erred in entertaining the review petition and setting aside the earlier view dated 17.02.2017………..."
The Court also relied on Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein the Supreme Court held:
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'."
Applying these principles, the Court held that the petitioner’s contention regarding Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The Co-ordinate Bench had already considered and negatived this objection, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Special Leave Petition further reinforced the finality of the judgment. Thus, the petitioner’s attempt to re-agitate the issue under the guise of review was unsustainable.
The Verdict
The review petition was dismissed. The Court held that no error apparent on the face of the record existed to justify interference under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Review Jurisdiction Is Not an Appeal
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC permits review only in limited circumstances, none of which include re-appreciation of evidence or re-examination of issues already decided.
- Practitioners must distinguish between errors apparent on the face of the record (which are self-evident) and errors requiring process of reasoning (which are not reviewable).
- A review petition cannot be used to circumvent the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court.
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act Has Limited Scope
- Section 53-A protects the possession of a transferee only against the transferor or parties claiming under the transferor. It does not confer protection against third parties, such as banks or auction purchasers, who are not privy to the agreement.
- Courts are unlikely to extend the protection of Section 53-A to disputes involving third-party rights, particularly when the third party’s rights have been crystallized through judicial proceedings (e.g., auction sales).
Limitation and Court Fee Are Jurisdictional Requirements
- Claims for specific performance must be filed within the prescribed limitation period (three years under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963).
- Failure to pay the requisite court fee for specific performance renders the claim non-maintainable.
- Practitioners must ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements, as defects in limitation or court fee cannot be cured through review.
