NON -REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5195 OF 2001
T.Thimmaiah ......Appellant
Vs.
Venkatachala Raju .......Respondent
JUDGMENT
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant challenges an order made in
review whereby the first appeal, which had earlier been
allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court,
has now been dismissed. This matter arises out of the
following facts: 2. The appellant herein, vide sale deed dated 27th
December 1971, purchased a property bearing site No.6
in 3rd block, Muneshwara Block, Palace Guttahalli,
Bangalore-3, and as per Schedule "A" and "B" with the
plaint the property was identified by specific boundaries
as well. On 26th October 1993 the appellant herein filed
a suit for declaration and possession of the Schedule ‘B’
property which was in possession of the defendant
respondent. The suit was contested by the defendant-
respondent. The trial court however decreed the suit on
22nd January 1991. The defendant-respondent
thereupon filed a first appeal in the High Court of
Karnataka and the said appeal was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge on 16th February 1999. The
respondent thereafter filed a review petition on 14th
November 1999. A notice was issued to the present
appellant in the review application and objections were
filed thereto as well. The learned Single Judge, however,
vide order dated 26th February 2001, allowed the appeal
by reviewing his earlier order and dismissed the suit. It
is in this circumstance that the present appeal is before
us. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
appellant has pointed out that a bare perusal of the
order in review would reveal that it is based on a
complete reappreciation of the matter on facts and the
provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure which would govern an application for review,
have been completely ignored. It has been submitted by
the counsel that the Single Judge had, in the first
judgment, examined the facts and dismissed the appeal
and on a reconsideration of the same facts, had allowed
the same, which was not justified. We find merit in this
plea. From a bare perusal of the judgment in review, it is
clear that the principles laid down under Order 47 Rule 1
of the CPC have been completely ignored. We
accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order in
review dated 26th February 2001 and dismiss the appeal
in the suit. We, however, give liberty to the respondent
herein to challenge the judgment dated 16th February
1999, if so advised. 4. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
................................. J.
(TARUN CHATTERJEE)
.................................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI) New Delhi Dated: May 9, 2008