The Meghalaya High Court has clarified the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), holding that a revision petition challenging an order rejecting a review application is maintainable, provided the petitioner does not seek interference with the underlying decree. This judgment distinguishes the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rahimal Bathu & ors v. Ashiyal Beevi and underscores the limited but crucial role of revisional courts in correcting jurisdictional errors without altering substantive decrees.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Md. Munshi Ali Sonari (since deceased, represented by his legal heir Smti. Zahida Begum), was a tenant in a premises owned by the respondent, Shillong Muslim Union, since 1988. The respondent instituted Title Suit No. 34(H) of 2014 before the Assistant District Judge, Shillong, seeking eviction of the petitioner. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 24.11.2021.
Procedural History
- 02.05.2024: The respondent’s appeal (Title Civil Appeal No. 1(H) of 2021) before the District Judge, Shillong, was allowed, and a decree of eviction was granted.
- Post-02.05.2024: The petitioner filed Review Application No. 1(H) of 2024 seeking review of the appellate judgment, along with an application for admission of additional documentary evidence.
- 07.07.2025: The Appellate Court dismissed the review application, holding it lacked merit.
- Thereafter: The petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition (CRP No. 15 of 2025) challenging the dismissal of the review application and seeking remand for fresh consideration.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for:
- Setting aside the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2025.
- Remand of the review application for reconsideration by the Appellate Court.
- Admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against an order rejecting a review application of an appealable decree, particularly when the petitioner does not seek interference with the decree itself but only requests reconsideration of the review application.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The decision in Rahimal Bathu & ors v. Ashiyal Beevi does not impose a blanket ban on revisional jurisdiction against orders rejecting review applications.
- The petitioner’s prayer was limited to remand for reconsideration of the review application, not interference with the appellate decree.
- The Appellate Court committed a jurisdictional error by refusing to entertain the petitioner’s prayer for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, thereby wrongly dismissing the review application.
For the Respondent
- Relying on Rahimal Bathu & ors, the respondent argued that no revision lies against an order rejecting a review application of an appealable decree.
- The petitioner failed to file an application for additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal and did not assert that the evidence was unknown or could not have been produced with due diligence.
- The impugned order was passed after applying settled principles of review jurisdiction and was free from jurisdictional error.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 115 CPC and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rahimal Bathu & ors, which held that a revision petition should not be entertained against an order rejecting a review of an appealable decree if it results in interference with the decree. However, the Court distinguished the present case on the ground that the petitioner did not seek modification or reversal of the appellate decree but only requested reconsideration of the review application.
"It emerges from the above that there is no absolute bar on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of rejection of review application. It is only in cases where exercise of jurisdiction by Revisional Court would lead to an interference with the decree in question, no revision should be entertained u/s 115 CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. In the present revision petition, no prayer has been made to interfere with the decree of the appellate court. The prayer is to set aside the impugned Judgment of dismissal of review application and to remand back the matter for reconsideration. Hence, the bar on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction posed by the decision of Rahimal Bathu & ors (supra), will not apply in the present case."
The Court further analyzed Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which permits the Appellate Court to admit additional evidence under specific conditions. However, it clarified that this provision cannot be invoked during review proceedings, as review is not an appeal in disguise. The legal basis for admitting new evidence in a review application must strictly comply with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
The Court noted that the Appellate Court had recorded a detailed finding at para 23 of its judgment, holding that the petitioner failed to produce rent receipts during the trial or appeal stages and did not seek the court’s assistance under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC. The petitioner did not dispute this finding, which was based on materials on record.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that:
- The revision petition was maintainable as it did not seek interference with the appellate decree.
- However, the petitioner failed to establish a jurisdictional error in the Appellate Court’s dismissal of the review application.
- The impugned judgment dated 07.07.2025 was upheld, and no relief was granted to the petitioner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revision Petition Maintainable Only for Limited Relief
- Practitioners must ensure that revision petitions challenging orders rejecting review applications do not seek interference with the underlying decree. Such petitions are maintainable only if they seek remand for reconsideration of the review application.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the revision petition indirectly seeks to modify or reverse the decree, which would render it non-maintainable under Rahimal Bathu & ors.
Strict Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Additional Evidence
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC cannot be invoked during review proceedings. Parties must seek admission of additional evidence during the pendency of the appeal, not after its disposal.
- To succeed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, parties must demonstrate that the evidence was not within their knowledge or could not have been produced despite due diligence at the time of the decree.
- Failure to produce evidence during trial or appeal stages, or to seek the court’s assistance under Order XI CPC, will likely result in rejection of subsequent attempts to introduce such evidence.
