The Powers of Review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC cannot be Exercised as an Inherent Power or an Appellate Power

The Supreme Court has noted that the powers of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC cannot be exercised as an inherent power or an appellate power.

Brief Facts of the Case

  • In the present case, the High Court had permitted an application seeking review of its judgment which had contained some observations regarding possession of the disputed property.
  • The High Court allowed the review petition observing that with reference to the possession of the disputed property the issue of possession was neither raised before the Trial Court nor before the First Appellate Court and even no issue with respect to possession was framed by the Trial Court.

Observation made by the Court

The Court examined the extent of the Court’s powers of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the powers of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised as an inherent power or an appellate power.

The court observed that:

To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against order and decree, may apply for a review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of the power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been elaborately discussed hereinabove. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to 34 the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of the review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review.

Advertisement

The Court further noted that when the observation with respect to the possession of the plaintiff was made on an appreciation of evidence/material on record, it cannot be said that there was an error apparent on the face of proceedings which were required to be reviewed in the exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

It is required to be noted that there were necessary pleadings with respect to possession in the plaint as well as in the written statement. Even the parties also led the evidence on the possession, it added.

Case Name: SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) vs. VINOD KUMAR RAWAT

Citation: CA NO.3601 OF 2020

Coram: Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah

Also Read: The Accused has a Right to Summon any Evidence/Witness which may be Relevant for Proper Appreciation of the Prosecution Evidence

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *