Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.25 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17765 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Smt. Bimla Devi Krishnan, W/O Late Sitaram Krishnan. 2. Shiv Ratan Krishnan, S/O Late Sitaram Krishnan. 3. Gyanchand Krishnan, S/O Late Sitaram Krishnan. All are residents of Mohalla- Purani Bazar, Sonarpatti, Muzaffarpur, P.O. + P.S. -Town Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. 4. Smt. Tara Verma, D/O Late Sitaram Krishnan, W/O Vijay Kumar Verma, R/O Mohalla Hazaribag Jhhanda Chowk, P.S. Town, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand). 5. Smt. Durga Verma, D/O Late Sitaram Krishnan, W/O Suraj Kumar Verma, R/O D1/60/04DLF Dilsad Intension Sopra, Gajiabad (U.P.). 6. Smt. Kanta Verma @ Kanta Devi Verma, D/O Late Sita Ram Krishnan, W/O Ravi Verma, Sonarpatty, G.P.O. Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur C/O Jwellers Patty, District Bhagalpur. 7. Smt. Saroj Verma, D/O Late Sitaram Krishnan, W/O Vijay Kumar Verma, R/O at Gopalbag Indore (M.P.). .... Petitioners .... Petitioner/s Versus Rajesh Kumar Gupta, S/O Bhuvneshwar Prasad Gupta, Proprietor M/S Govardhan Ramashish Prasad and Brothers at Purani Bazar, Sonarpatti, Muzaffarpur, P.S. Town Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. .... Respondents .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
order dated 5.11.2012 passed by this Court in CWJC No.17765 of 2012, whereby the writ application was dismissed. Patna High Court C. REV. No.25 of 2013 (3) dt.17-04-2013 2 2 / 7 The facts of the case in brief is that the writ application was filed by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing the order dated 28.8.2012 passed in Eviction Suit No.9 of 2008, whereby the application filed by the defendant- respondent herein under Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟) for amendment of the written statement had been allowed by the learned Munsif (East), Muzaffarpur. The amendments proposed are placed at Annexure- 10 of the writ application. The petitioners by way of the writ application sought to question the amendments proposed at paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. By the amendment proposed at paragraph 4 the defendant sought to amend paragraph 11 of the written statement placed at Annexure 3 by deletion of part of sentence i.e. “shop in question is a joint property of the plaintiffs”. The deletion of the portion of the sentence relating to joint property being a matter on record, the deletion thereof can hardly stated to be withdrawal of admission effecting the admission or prejudicing the case of the plaintiff. The proposed amendment at paragraph 5 seeking to delete certain words from paragraph 12 of the written statement again relating to the parties to the lis is a matter on record and its withdrawal again Patna High Court C. REV. No.25 of 2013 (3) dt.17-04-2013 3 3 / 7 cannot be termed to be causing any kind of prejudice. The proposed amendment at paragraph 6 seeking to delete certain words in paragraph 13 of the written statement seeks to withdraw a statement relating to denial of default by the defendant in making payment of the rent in terms of paragraph 9 of the lease. The deletion again relating to default in making payment of rent, is a withdrawal of a negative statement and not an admission and thus in no manner prejudices the case of the plaintiff who has to prove the default on the basis of his own evidence. The proposed amendment at paragraph 9 seeking to enhance the valuation stated at paragraph 21 of the written statement is a mere submission of the defendant. A submission of such nature ipso facto does not enhance the valuation of the property unless an order to this effect is passed by the trial court. The proposed amendment at paragraph 10 of the amendment application seeking to delete certain words in paragraph 22 of the written statement is again an innocuous amendment. It is in the aforementioned background when the matter was contested before this Court, this Court appreciating the matter in issue and even when the impugned order did not in so many words discuss the amendments except holding that they were simple and formal in nature, upon consideration of the Patna High Court C. REV. No.25 of 2013 (3) dt.17-04-2013 4 4 / 7 matter in issue in the backdrop of the arguments advanced, did not deem it proper to interfere with the amendment so allowed in the written statement as the order impugned neither suffered from any jurisdictional error or any legal infirmity. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel having appeared in support of the review application had sought to canvass that the proposed amendments in fact sought to withdraw the admission of the defendant regarding admission of landlord-tenant relationship. He referred to an application filed under Order-I rule 10 of the Code by one Bhuvneshwar Prasad Gupta placed at Annexure-7 series of the writ application. It was submitted that this Bhuvneshwar Prasad Gupta is none other than the father of the defendant and who had sought to intervene in the eviction proceedings on the basis of a sale-deed dated 22.2.2010 claiming purchase of a portion of the land and the building in dispute and thus claiming to be an owner to the property and which application for intervention was rejected by the learned trial court by order passed on 17.5.2011 placed at Annexure-9 and now the defendant by the amendments allowed seeks to bring the very same facts on record. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the rejection of intervention application of the father of the defendant has any relevance to the proposed amendments. In Patna High Court C. REV. No.25 of 2013 (3) dt.17-04-2013 5 5 / 7 fact in the entire written statement there is not even a whisper to this effect nor by the proposed amendment the defendant has tried to either implead his father or to bring on record the instance of the purchase by his father under the sale deed dated 22.2.2010. Although in the pleading made in the amendment application a reference has been made by the defendant with regard to the purchase of the shop in question by his father under the sale deed dated 22.2.2010 but the proposed amendments do not seek to introduce any such material which can be termed as introduction of a plea of purchase of the suit property by the father of the defendant making him a tenant under him. On the contrary a specific statement has been made in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the written statement admitting to his tenancy under a lease dated 11.12.1997 while questioning the right of the plaintiff to file a suit. The said statement in the written statement brings to an end all speculations that the attention of this Court was not drawn towards these relevant aspects. In fact the grounds so raised in the review application again are limited to the grounds of default and of enhancement of valuation and no such ground has been raised as canvassed by Mr. Giri. Reliance was placed by Mr. Giri on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2005)4 SCC 741 (Board of Patna High Court C. REV. No.25 of 2013 (3) dt.17-04-2013 6 6 / 7 Control for Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club), paragraph 88, 89 and 90 to elaborate on the scope of review jurisdiction and that the power under Order 47 rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to correct misconception of fact or law committed by a court or even an Advocate but the situation is not such in the present case. Inasmuch as, there was no misconception of law or fact either in the contentions advanced by learned counsel at the stage of writ application or in the order under review, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners do not make out a case for interfering with the order impugned. The scope of exercise of review jurisdiction has been more elaborately dealt in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2012)7 SCC 200 (Haryana State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mawasi) and the submission of Mr. Giri in so far as the onus of an Advocate is concerned stands answered in paragraph 34 of the judgment relying upon an earlier supreme Court judgment which reads as follows: 34. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik20, the Court observed: (SCC p. 82, para 13) “13. … The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing „on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason‟. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a Patna High Court C. REV. No.25 of 2013 (3) dt.17-04-2013 7 7 / 7 rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict.” The judgment of a court may or may not be erroneous but a mere second opinion or a different view is not sufficient enough for exercise of review jurisdiction. The principles underlying the exercise of review jurisdiction stands well settled and unless there is error apparent on the face of record or there is discovery of material which even after due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party complaining the same and which if brought at the relevant time would have altered the view or there is any other sufficient reason which is analogous to such circumstances, are the only consideration in which this power needs to be exercised and certainly not in a routine manner and certainly not on grounds that the matter was not properly placed before the Court. I find no reason to review the order passed in the writ application and accordingly this civil review application is dismissed. SKPathak/- (Jyoti Saran, J)
Arguments
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 3 17-04-2013 Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. This civil review application seeks to review the