A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. is a definitive exposition on the limits of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court, while exercising review powers, could delete substantive factual observations made in an earlier appellate judgment concerning possession of immovable property. The controversy arose after the High Court, nearly two years after disposing of a first appeal, entertained a review petition and deleted an entire paragraph recording findings on possession, solely on the ground that no specific issue on possession had been framed by the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court emphatically held that such an exercise amounted to overstepping review jurisdiction. It reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or to unsettle findings recorded after detailed examination of pleadings and proof. The Court underscored that absence of a formally framed issue does not vitiate findings when parties were aware of the controversy, led evidence, and suffered no prejudice. Observations on possession were based on depositions, pleadings, and even admissions by defendants through interlocutory applications.

By restoring the deleted paragraph, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine of finality of judgments, clarified the distinction between error apparent on the face of record and erroneous findings, and reinforced judicial discipline in exercising review powers. The judgment carries substantial precedential value in civil procedure, particularly in property litigation and appellate practice.

Keywords: Review Jurisdiction, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, Error Apparent, Possession, Finality of Judgment, Civil Procedure

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The litigation traces its origin to a long-standing dispute over ownership and possession of a residential property in Gwalior. The predecessor of the appellants claimed title on the basis of a Will dated 19.10.1993, while the respondents asserted ownership through an Adoption Deed and a subsequent registered Sale Deed dated 25.03.1995. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, accepting the defence version of adoption and transfer.

On appeal, the High Court affirmed dismissal but recorded detailed observations on possession after analysing oral and documentary evidence. These findings assumed significance because they recognised the plaintiffs’ actual possession, despite their failure to succeed on title. Nearly two years later, the defendants invoked review jurisdiction seeking deletion of those observations.

The High Court allowed the review solely on the premise that no formal issue on possession had been framed. This approach raised serious questions regarding judicial discipline, scope of review, and the sanctity of findings rendered after appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court was thus called upon to delineate the permissible contours of review jurisdiction under the CPC and to decide whether procedural omissions could nullify substantive findings grounded in evidence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The original plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 04A of 2005 seeking declaration that a registered Sale Deed dated 25.03.1995 executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 was null and void. He also sought a permanent injunction restraining alienation of the suit property. The plaintiff’s claim rested on a Will allegedly executed by Chhimmabai on 19.10.1993, under which he claimed ownership and possession.

The defendants contested the claim by asserting that Chhimmabai had adopted defendant no.3, evidenced by a registered Adoption Deed dated 13.05.1992. On this basis, defendant no.3 sold the property to defendants nos.1 and 2, who claimed to be bona fide purchasers in possession.

The Trial Court framed issues relating to ownership, validity of the Will, adoption, and legality of the sale deed. After trial, it dismissed the suit, upholding the adoption and sale. In the First Appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal but, while doing so, examined depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, pleadings, and interlocutory applications. It recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed house.

Subsequently, defendants filed a review petition seeking deletion of this finding. The High Court allowed the review, holding that possession was never in issue. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court could exercise review jurisdiction to delete findings based on appreciation of evidence?
ii. Whether non-framing of an issue on possession invalidates findings recorded on evidence?
iii. Whether such deletion amounts to re-appreciation of evidence under the guise of review?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the High Court acted beyond the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The finding on possession was based on pleadings, oral evidence, and even admissions by defendants in applications under Section 151 CPC. There was no error apparent on the face of record.

It was argued that non-framing of an issue does not vitiate proceedings when parties were aware of the controversy and led evidence. Reliance was placed on Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple v. Meenakshi Ammal and Bhuwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to show that procedural omissions fade into insignificance in absence of prejudice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that possession was never a subject matter of the suit or appeal. No injunction against dispossession was sought. Therefore, any observation on possession was beyond pleadings. The High Court, it was argued, merely corrected an error by deleting irrelevant observations.

It was further submitted that review jurisdiction includes power to rectify such errors to prevent misuse of findings in collateral proceedings.

H) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the review order. It held that the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that Section 114 CPC confers substantive power of review, but its exercise is strictly controlled by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

The Court emphasised that findings on possession were based on appreciation of evidence, including depositions and admissions. Such findings cannot be characterised as errors apparent. The review court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment. The deletion of paragraph 20 amounted to re-hearing on merits, which is impermissible.

The Court also rejected the argument based on absence of a framed issue, observing that pleadings and evidence clearly covered possession. The respondents themselves sought possession through interlocutory applications, thereby admitting plaintiffs’ possession.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio is that review jurisdiction cannot be used to unsettle findings of fact recorded after appreciation of evidence. An error apparent must be self-evident and not one requiring detailed reasoning. Absence of a formally framed issue does not invalidate findings when parties were conscious of the dispute and led evidence. Review is not an appellate remedy and cannot be exercised to correct an allegedly erroneous decision on merits.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice. It cautioned High Courts against entertaining belated review petitions aimed at nullifying adverse observations for collateral advantages. Judicial discipline requires restraint in reopening concluded findings.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Review jurisdiction must remain confined to grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
ii. Findings based on evidence cannot be revisited in review.
iii. Non-framing of an issue does not nullify adjudication if parties led evidence without prejudice.
iv. Review cannot be used as a strategic tool to erase unfavourable observations.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the sanctity of final judgments and preserves the hierarchical distinction between appeal and review. It prevents abuse of review proceedings to erase inconvenient findings. The decision provides clarity on procedural law and strengthens certainty in civil adjudication, particularly in property disputes where findings on possession carry independent legal significance.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78

• Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715

• Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple v. Meenakshi Ammal, (2015) 3 SCC 624

• Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224

b) Important Statutes Referred

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• Indian Penal Code, 1860