WRW/174/2013 of GOPAL SHARMA S/O SHRI GOVIND RAM SHARMA Vs RAM PRASAD S/O LATE SHRI MOTI on 24 July 2026

Order

24/07/2026

1. Instant review application (for short, application') has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with aid of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, seeking to review/recall the final order dated 20.09.2013, whereby and whereunder S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17175/2013, filed by applicants/writ petitioners was dismissed on merits.

2. Heard counsel for the applicants/writ petitioners at length and carefully perused the record.

3. As per office report, notices of this application have been served upon the respondents and earlier one Advocate Mr. Shameem Kureshi put in appearance for and on behalf of respondents No.11.1 to 11.7, but thereafter, he stopped to put in appearance and thereafter no one appeared on behalf of respondents at the time of hearing of this application.

4. Before delving into the issue of recall/review of the final order dated 20.09.2013, it is necessary to recapitulate the factual matrix of the case in brief as under: 4.1 Applicant No.2 instituted a Civil Suit No.119/2003 seeking to declare the sale deed dated 28.03.1971 as null and void to the extent of his 1/2 share in the suit property stating inter alia that this sale deed was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 (non-applicant No.1 to 5 herein) in respect of their

(4 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] shares and at that relevant point of time, he was a minor of age 4 years, however, his 1/2 share was also sold by the said sale deed. In the suit, non-applicant Nos.1 to 5 were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 to 5. This suit came to be decreed vide ex-parte judgment dated 25.04.2005 and the sale deed dated 28.03.1971 through which respondent No.5 viz. Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. purchased the entire land including 1/2 share of applicant, was declared null and void qua plaintiff applicant No.2. 4.2 Defendant No.5-Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, praying to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which came to be allowed vide order dated 10.01.2007 and the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2005 was set aside. Consequently, Civil Suit No.119/2003 has revived for a fresh trial. 4.3 Thereafter, it appears that non-applicant Nos. 6 to 17, jointly moved an application seeking their impleadment in the present suit on the ground that defendant No.5-Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., after purchase of the land in question through sale deed dated 28.03.1971 has developed a residential scheme under the name of 'Vardhman Nagar, Jaipur', wherein they have purchased/allotted plots and are in possession thereof. Their application came to be allowed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur vide order dated 05.09.2013 whereagainst applicants filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17175/2013 invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4.4 The writ petition filed by applicants was heard and dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2013,

(5 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] whereagainst instant application seeking to review/recall of final order dated 20.09.2013 has been filed.

5. Submission of counsel for the applicants is that on behalf of non-applicants Nos. 6 to 17, who alleged themselves to be allottee members in the scheme developed by the non-applicant No.5 viz. Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Society, step in the shoes of non-applicant No. 5 and since the Samiti itself has been impleaded as defendant No.5 in the suit and is contesting the suit to defend its sale deed dated 28.03.1971, therefore, non-applicant Nos. 6 to 17 could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the present suit. His submission is that learned trial Court committed a manifest error in allowing their impleadment vide order dated 05.09.2013 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.09.2013, without adverting to the delay in filing application, dismissed the applicants' writ petition and thereby affirmed the order.

6. Further submission of counsel for the applicants is in respect of few subsequent developments, stated to be occurred in the present proceedings, that non-applicant/defendant No.5-Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. has come under liquidation and over the management of Samiti, liquidator has also been appointed. Thereafter, the allotment of plots in the Scheme of 'Vardhman Nagar, Jaipur', made in favour of applicant Nos.6 to 17 has been cancelled by the Administrator/Liquidator, therefore, on the strength of such subsequent facts, submission of counsel for the applicants is that non-applicants No.6 to 17 have lost their so called rights/interest in the suit property and their impleadment, on that count as well stands unwarranted, therefore, the final

(6 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] order dated 20.09.2013 may be reviewed/recalled to hear the writ petition afresh on merits.

7. In addition to above, learned counsel for the applicants have also raised an objection regarding filing of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the non-applicant Nos.6 to 17 with delay and have also pointed out that their first application was dismissed in default vide order dated 01.05.2013 and then restoration application was filed, which was withdrawn on 29.07.2013, but thereafter, second application was filed on 29.07.2013, which has been allowed.

8. Having pondered over the submissions made by counsel for the applicants at length and after appreciating the factual matrix obtaining in the case at hand so also having perused the final order dated 20.09.2013, sought to be reviewed, this Court finds that concededly, applicant's No.2 Civil Suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment dated 25.04.2005 and thereby the registered sale deed in question dated 28.03.1971, executed in favour of non- applicant No.5-viz. Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. was declared null and void but later on, ex parte decree has been set aside vide order dated 10.01.2007 and the applicants' Civil Suit No. 119/2003, seeking to declare the sale deed dated 28.03.1971 as null and void, stands revived before the Civil Court qua non-applicant No.5-Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, when the suit was/is at initial stage of recording evidence of applicants/plaintiffs at that stage, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by non-applicant Nos. 6 to 17 came to be filed which has been allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 05.09.2013 and thereby have been allowed

(7 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] to be impleaded as party defendant in the present suit. A perusal of order dated 05.09.2013 reveals that trial Court assigned reasons for allowing impleadment of non-applicant Nos.6 to 17 in the present suit and a speaking and reasoned order was passed.

9. It was observed by the trial Court in the order dated 05.09.2013 that since the non-applicants are allottees in the scheme developed by the non applicant no.5- Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and are in possession of their respective plots, obviously they would be affected by the final outcome of judgment, if the sale deed of non-applicant No.5 is declared null and void behind their back and therefore, applicants were considered as proper parties and an opportunity of hearing was accorded to the applicants by allowing their impleadment in the present Civil Suit.

10. Applicants/writ petitioners challenged the order dated 05.09.2013 by way of filing SBCWP No. 17175/2013, invoking the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition, applicants raised all the points, as has been raised on their behalf in this review application. The Coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with each and every argument and thereafter, dismissed the writ petition on merits vide order dated 20.09.2013. The subsequent facts, noted hereinabove were also raised and considered by the High Court in the order dated 20.09.2013.

11. This Court finds that the arguments which have been put- forth by and on behalf of applicants/writ petitioners are one and

(8 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] the same arguments which were made while arguing the writ petition itself and all points were dealt with on merits and rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 20.09.2013. The order dated 20.09.2013 is a detailed and reasoned order. This Court finds that on this count, the order dated 20.09.2013 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record or from non-consideration of any point raised by applicants in the review application.

12. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 20.09.2013 was passed, after hearing counsel for the applicants/review petitioners, hence, same does not suffer with violation of principles of natural justice. In that view, prayer for recalling is misconceived.

13. In respect of seeking review of order passed on merits, in civil cases, it is well settled proposition of law that a re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law within the scope of review and further, review is not an appeal in disguise nor it is an opportunity to the review applicant for re-hearing of the matter already adjudicated.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lily Thomas & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, while dealing with scope of review in civil case, held and observed in para No.56 as under :- "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." (emphasis supplied)

(9 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]

15. In case of Rajendra Kumar V. Rambai reported in (2007) 15 SCC 513, Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of exercise of powers of review, held in para no. 6 as under: "6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed." (emphasis supplied)

16. Following the above ratio decidendi, in case of Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663, Hon'ble Supreme Court re-considered the scope of review and held that the review court does not sit like an appellate Court for its own order. It was also held that the inherent jurisdiction may not be invoked for reviewing the order passed on merits and to substitute the previous view of the Court.

17. On the issue of ''any error apparent on the face of record'' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338, held and observed that while exercising the scope of review, a long drawn process of reasoning is not required to be followed to find any error apparent on the face of record. For ready reference Para no.72 is being reproduced as under: "72.

Undoubtedly, any error to be an error on the face of

the record, cannot be one which has to be established by a long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions or if the error requires lengthy and complicated arguments to establish

(10 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] it, a writ of certiorari would not lie. This principle is equally applicable to a review petition also." (emphasis supplied)

18. It is true that scope of review under Section 47 CPC is not confined to finding ''any error apparent on the face of record" in the order impugned, rather review of order is permissible "for any other sufficient reason" as well but this Court does not find any good reason to review the order dated 20.09.2013.

19. It is noteworthy here in the final order dated 20.09.2013, the High Court while not interfering in the order of trial Court, allowing impleadment of non-applicant Nos.6 to 17 within the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, has observed that as per subsequent facts, Samiti has gone in liquidation and the interest of Samiti would be represented by the Liquidator, therefore, obviously Samiti is a separate entity and it would not and could not represent the interest of plot holders. In respect of cancellation of allotment of applicants/plot holders, it was observed that this issue can not be accepted at the initial stage of considering the point of impleadment of plot holders, rather can be gone into during trial, if plaintiffs are able to establish the fact that allotment of plots made in favour of non-applicants/respondents Nos. 6 to 17 had been cancelled. n20. It is well settled that although plaintiff is master of his civil suit and has discretion against whom plaintiff wants to fight & seek relief, yet by virtue of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, Court has power to add any person(s) party to the suit, whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court

(11 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The trial Court in the order dated 05.09.2013 has clearly observed that since applicants claim their title & interest in the plot allotted to them in the scheme of Samiti, hence, they would certainly affected, if the sale deed in favour of Samiti is declared null and void and if applicants are deprived from their plot, without getting an opportunity of hearing, same would lead multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, non-applicant Nos. 6 to 17 were held at least proper party to be heard. The trial Court also pondered over the issue of delay, in filing application by applicants. Thus, each and every point sought to be raised by review petitioners, have already been considered on merits.

21. Counsel for review petitioners made an endeavor to submit that by allowing impleadment of non-applicant Nos. 6 to 17, other plot holders in the scheme may also come forward for impleadment in the present suit, but this arguments is required to be considered at the time of impleadment of necessary and proper party nor is sufficient reason to review the order impugned.

22. Having enlightened with the proposition of law as expounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again in the judgments cited hereinabove and taking into consideration the fundamental issue, sought to be reviewed by applicant, which is confined to challenging the order of trial Court, in the writ petition, allowing impleadment of non-applicants no.6 to 17 in the civil suit and having gone through the order dated 05.09.2013 passed by the trial Court on merits and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by High

(12 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] Court on merits within the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that filing of this review application by writ petitioner, for seeking review of the final order dated 20.09.2013, dismissing the writ petition of petitioners on merits, is nothing but sheer misuse of the process of law. The application filed by applicants/writ petitioners is absolutely beyond the scope of review/recall and no ground whatsoever exists at all to review/recall the final order dated 20.09.2013 which was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court on merits. Indeed, applicants/writ petitioners have made an attempt, by means of filing instant review petition, for rehearing of their writ petition on merits, that too once the writ petition has already been heard by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court and has been dismissed on merits, therefore, such an endeavor of applicants/writ petitioners may not be appreciated. This attempt of applicants appears to be filled with unfairness and obviously has been made with some ulterior motive, which deserves to be deprecated. In order to discourage such an attempt and to prevent misuse of process of law, a token amount of cost may be imposed upon the review petitioners.

23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr. reported in 2024 Supreme(SC) 1336, while dealing with the issue of filing vexatious and frivolous review petition by the litigants to re-open the decided issues, held and observed that such litigants must be burdened with heavy cost to deter such practices in future. It would be apropos to reproduce para no. 22 as hereunder -:

(13 of 13) [WRW-174/2013] "22. Considering that precious time of this Court and the High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion the petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost, to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation."

24. As a result, the review application is hereby dismissed and in order to deter such practice of the litigants to misuse the jurisdiction of High Court in the guise of filing an absurd application of review/recall and then keeping the matter pending for years together, this Court deems it just and proper to impose a token cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) upon the applicants. The cost be deposited with the Litigants Welfare Fund by way of Demand Draft/Banker’s Cheque in the name of Registrar General LWFA, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur within a period of four weeks.

25. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Pcg/46