Case title: Rahimal Bathu Vs Ashiyal Beevi
Case no.: SLP (C) No. 8428 OF 2018
Decided on: 26.11.2023
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra
Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra stated that “An order rejecting a review application is not appealable but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit. Where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed.”
BRIEF FACTS:
In order to establish her ownership of the property and take possession of it, the respondent filed an original lawsuit. Alternatively, it was prayed that her share be declared one-sixth of the property and that the property be divided accordingly if the court found that she was not the only owner. The suit property was owned by the plaintiff’s grandmother, from whom he bought it by sale-deed. The other defendants were her kids, and the appellant, the defendant, was her daughter-in-law. The defendant’s husband took advantage of the situation and obtained a gift deed from the plaintiff’s grandmother.
In the alternative, it was argued that if the gift-deed was accepted, because the defendant’s husband died, the plaintiff’s grandmother would receive one-sixth of the property that would be transferred to the plaintiff under the sale-deed. The plaintiff filed a review application after the Trial Court found the gift deed invalid and the sale deed valid, but it was denied. The High Court then considered and approved the revision under Section 115 of the CPC.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
On this issue, the court emphasised that if the revisional court overturns, modifies, or alters a trial court’s decree, the trial court’s decree will be merged into the one passed by the revisional court. As a result, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decree to file an appeal would be affected. Furthermore, there may be cases where a person is dissatisfied with a trial court finding on any issue, even if the trial court’s decree is in their favour. In that scenario, if a party aggrieved by the decree files an appeal, that person has the right to object to the adverse finding; however, if there is no appeal, such a person loses the right to object to the adverse finding.
After examining the parties’ arguments, the court correctly assessed the situation and clarified that, in cases where an appealable decree has been issued in a lawsuit, no revisions under Section 115 of the CPC against an order that denies a review of the decree on the merits should be considered. If a party’s application for review of an appealable decree has been denied on the merits, that party should file an appeal against the decree. If, in the interim, the appeal is barred by time, the court where the appeal is filed can pardon the time spent assiduously pursuing the review application.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith
