Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik, 2006

Introduction

• This is an important case on reviewing judgment.

Facts

• One Kalipada Das, (respondent No. 1 in the review petition) the original owner of the suit property, entered an oral agreement with the appellant on 19^th August 1982 and on the same day, the appellant paid Rs. 14,000/- towards the agreed consideration of Rs. 46,000/- to sell his portion of the suit property, with a dwelling house standing thereon.
• The possession of the suit property was also handed over to the appellant, with a promise that a sale deed would be executed in favour of the appellant within three years. Again on 23^rd August 1982 the appellant paid a further sum of Rs. 31,000/.
  • In essence Rs. 45,000/- was paid leaving only a nominal sum of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
• As the time for execution of the sale deed was nearing, the appellant learnt that the said Kalipada Das with a view to defeat the appellant's right was trying to sell part of the property to one Chunnilal Deb and to mortgage part of the suit property with the Housing Board of Karimganj.
• He started openly threatening the appellant to dispossess him of the suit property. The appellant paid the balance amount of Rs.1,000/- and asked Kalipada to execute the registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the property.
• In view of threatened dispossession, the appellant, with a view to protect his possession of the suit property filed a Title Suit.
  • The appellant sought confirmation of possession over the suit land and premises, and for permanent injunction restraining Kalipada Das from dispossessing the appellant and from selling the suit property to any third party.
• In the said plaint the appellant exclusively reserved his right to file another suit for getting the sale deed executed.
  • By an interim order, Kalipada Das was directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property.
  • The suit was dismissed for default, but later was restored by an order passed by learned Munsif.
• The appellant filed another suit being Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 (re-numbered as 13/90) for specific performance of the agreement for sale and for the execution of the proper deed of sale in respect of the suit property.
  • During the pendency of the said proceedings, Kalipada Das executed and registered a sale deed in favour of one Usha Rani Banik, defendant No. 3 (Respondent No. 1 herein), while the possession of the suit property still remained with the appellant.
• Immediately thereafter, the appellant filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 for cancellation of the said sale deed as the same was illegal, fraudulent and void.
• The respondent No. 1 also filed a suit being Title Suit No. 22/87 for declaring her title to the suit property based on the sale deed.
• Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 filed by the appellant was decreed whereby the sale deed executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 was cancelled.
• Against the said decree of the trial court, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before learned District Judge, Karimganj, which was allowed setting aside the decree passed in Title Suit No. 2 of 1987.
• The appellant preferred Second Appeal No. 12 of 1993 before the High Court.
• The Second Appeal was allowed restoring the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 2 of 1987.
• The High Court held that no leave under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was obtained by the respondent in Title Suit No. 201 of 1985.
• Therefore, Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 filed for specific performance of the agreement for sale of land is hit by the provisions of Order II CPC.
• The appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a civil appeal.

Issue Involved

• Whether the High Court has erred in reviewing the order in the second appeal?

Observations

• The court, in its deliberation, scrutinized the provisions of Section 114 of CPC to fathom the extent of review.
• Although the section lacked explicit delineation, Order 47 of CPC provided parameters for review, allowing a rehearing upon the discovery of a mistake or an error manifest on the records.
• Notably, the rule distinguished between errors attributable to the applicant and those pertaining to the inherent correctness of a judicial action.
• The court emphasized that mere failure to exhaust all aspects of a case or to present arguments forcefully did not warrant a rehearing.
• This was underscored by the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47, which precluded review based on subsequent superior court decisions.
• Applying these principles to the case at hand, it was evident that the High Court erred in granting the review petition, as the grounds for review were not substantiated by the facts.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court set aside the judgement passed by the High Court in the review petition and restored the judgment and order passed in the Second Appeal.