RP/263/2022 of SHRI DASTGIR KHAN Vs SMT GOWRAMMA on 30 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This review petition is filed against the judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2021 passed in R.S.A.No.2189/2006.

3. This Court considered the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission that whether sale of immovable property effected after the dismissal of the suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, for non- prosecution and before the restoration of the suit, is hit by the principles of lis pendence enunciated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

4. This Court having considered the said substantial question of law, heard both the counsel and comes to the

HC-KAR

conclusion that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the substantive question of law is answered. While passing the judgment, in paragraph 25, even extracted Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and same pertains to substantial question of law framed by this Court and the same is answered in paragraphs 26 to 28 and comes to the conclusion that considering the conduct and approach there is no hesitation to decree the suit as prayed for non-preferring an appeal by Gangamma also has to be considered seriously since the original owner has not filed any appeal and only subsequent purchaser has filed the second appeal.

5. Now, the counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised three grounds in this review petition particularly taking into note of once again Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as the same is not applicable to the petitioners since they were not parties to the suit at the initial stage. Since the petitioners have purchased the property when there was no judicial proceeding pending as on the date of execution of the sale deed on 22.06.1994 in favour of the petitioners by the

HC-KAR

vendor of the petitioners. The other ground urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that this Court ought to have seen that there was only an agreement of sale appears to have been executed by the vendors of the petitioners to the respondent, but however, the petitioners have purchased the property when there was no judicial proceeding pending more so the judgment and decree passed by the courts below is not applicable to the petitioners as they have put in possession of the property on the date of execution of the sale deed itself and are in possession till today. The other ground urged is that order is liable to be reviewed on the ground that vendor of the petitioners Smt.Gangamma has not challenged the judgment and decree passed by the courts below before this Court as she was not interested since the property was transferred in favour of the petitioners and hence the petitioners cannot be faulted for having not challenged by the vendor of the petitioners.

6. The counsel reiterates the grounds which have been urged in the review petition in his arguments. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 1279 in the case of V MUTHUSAMI (DEAD) BY LRS vs

HC-KAR

ANGAMMAL AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 22 and 23 with regard to the hardship is concerned.

7. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported in (2008) 12 SCC 316 in the case of SEENIVASAN vs PETER JEBARAJ AND ANOTHER wherein also discussion was made with regard to Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and explanation.

8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court with regard to the scope of review petition reported in (2013) 13 SCC 515 in the case of S MURALI SUNDARAM vs JOTHIBAI KANNAN AND OTHERS and brought to notice of paragraph 17, wherein an observation is made that considering a catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC under what circumstances, review can be invoked and held that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the same is discussed considering the judgment of PERRY KANSAGRA vs SMRITI MADAN

HC-KAR

KANSAGRA reported in (2019) 20 SCC 753 wherein taken note of five circumstances for entertaining the review and not to entertaining the same and an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. The counsel submits that no such circumstances are warranted in the case on hand.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that the scope of review is very limited under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. If the material is not considered by the Court, then the Court can consider the same and the very same Court cannot sit and decide the issue once again. But there must be an error apparent on record. The grounds which are urged by the counsel appearing in the petitioners are in respect of Section 52 of the Act and the same has been discussed in paragraph 25 of the judgment and the same is extracted and also even in paragraphs 27 to 29 discussed with regard to the scope of bona fide purchasers. The other ground urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that court has to take note of hardship. The very material available before the

HC-KAR

court was considered by this Court while considering the RSA and comes to the conclusion that both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have not committed any error in decreeing the suit. When such reasoning is given that there is no error apparent on record while considering the regular second appeal and this Court heard the matter in length and passed the order and answered the substantial question of law accordingly particularly it was framed in respect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, I do not find any ground to review the judgment of this Court. Thus, no grounds are made out to entertain the review petition. The scope which is empowered in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is not found in the case on hand. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain this review petition even on the ground of hardship and also once again considering Section 52 since the same has already been considered by this court while considering the very proviso of Section 52 of the Act and the same was extracted in the second appeal and reasoning was given. Thus, no ground is made out to review the judgment.

HC-KAR

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The review petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN