Devaraju Piltai v. Setlayya Pitla/)

datccl 17.02.2(120 lrassed by this Court in CI{P No.25 l(r of 2019.

3. Civil Rcvision Petition No.146 of 2021 is lLled aggrieved by docl<ct order clated 07.01 .2021, in I.A. I.Jo. 510 ol' 2018 in

1.,,\.No.20S ol'2018 in O.S.No.387 ol'2018 on th-- file VIII Additional Senior CliviI Judge, Itanga Reddy district at I-.B.Nagar

4. 'l-he petitioncr herein is petitioner in the Clivil Revision Petition yicle ( RP No.25 l6 of 2019.

5. 'fl"re lact.ual niatrix of the case has been set out in dctail in the orclcl under challcnge. Thus, shorn of unnecessary rletails it is strlllcient to state that thc petitioner herein had filed thc r-rnderlying rI ! l , t i i 2 petition aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by this Court in CRP No.25l6 of 2019.

6. CRP No.25l6 of 2019 was tiled assailing rhe order of triat Court and appellate Court by clairning that the Court below did not consider the attachment of property under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC while setting aside the order ol'one-month civil prison; that the Court did not consider the fact that there is no pleading or finding in respect of the r,villful disobedience or breach of the trial Courl order holding her to be in breach of the order passeci b1, the trial Court.

7. This Court had disposed of the CRP No. 2516 of 2019 by directing the petitioner to bring down the illegal construction rnade in the suit schedule propefty after passing the injunction order dated 02.05.2018 in I.A. No.208 of 2018 to show her bonafide's and tender unconditional apology within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the order dated 18.09.2019 in C.M.A. No.70 of 2019 passed by the XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, confinning the order dated

13.08.2018 in 1.A. No.510 of 2018 in t.A. No.208 of 2018 in O.S. 3 No.387 ol- 2Cr l8 shall stand affirmed and the petitioner shall be detained ir-r ci.,,il prison for a period of one month.

8. -I'his Cotrrl u,hile disposing the CRP by placirrg reliance on the Advocatc ('orlmissioner's report and the trial Cotrrt's findirrg in paragraph l3 ol'the injunction order, recording that construction was at the pillar stage, had held that the trial Cor-rrt lras rightly concluded that the petitioner continued construction despite the injunction order dated 02.05.2018, and being restrainerl to proceed with rvork per:diirg disposal of the suit.

9. This coLrrt lfu1her affirnred the trial Court's finding that the petitioner had acted in violation of the said order ar-rcl tound no grounds to int.ert-cre, and rejected the petitioner's clairr o[ having stopped constrr-rction or1 01.05.2018, noting that sucli a plea was disproved b1 the existence of a completed ground + live-storey structure. I0. The prersent review petition is filed seeking review of the order of this C'r'rr-rr-L in CRI, No.25l6 of 2019 lI. civil Revision Petition No.146 of 2021 is filed aggrieved by the u,arrant oi arrest dated 07.01 .z0zl issued in pursuance to the 4 order passed in I.A. No.5l0 of 2018 in O.S. No. 387 of 2018 having been confirmed by this Court in CRP No.2516 of 2019. l2.The trial Court issued warrant of arrest against the respondent for detention in civil imprisonment, for not complying the directions issued even after giving sulficient tirne to comply the same vide order dated 07.02.2020 l3.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

14. Petitioners in Review Petition contend that the trial Court and appellate Court ought to have considered attachment of properly instead of ordering petitioner to be detained in civil prison for one rnonth under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

15. It is also contended that there is no pleading in the order of the Court below there, as willful disobedience or breach of the Court order and therefore the finding that the petitioner breached the interim order is not correct. The petitioner further contended that he requested the advocate that he rvould tender unconditional apology and would hand over the building to plaintiff without seeking any equity, in case of his success in the suit. ;tl ,I 5

16.On the afirresaid ground the review of the order o1'this Court vide CRP No.2-5 I 6 is 2019 is sought. l7.l'he petitic,ner in CRP No.l46 of 2021 contend that the warrant of arrest issut,d undcr I.A.No.5 l0 o[' 2018 in O.S. No.387 of 2018 is u,ithout.iur,sdiction, thereby seeking to set aside the order dated

07.01 .2021 pcssecl b1, the trial Court

18. I have tak,-'rr rrote of the respective contentions urged.

19. On behall'ol- the revierv petitioner it is conterrded that the trial Court origlrt to have awaited for the outcome ol'the review petition hled in CRP No.642 of 2020, before issuing the warrant of arrest. Hower,er. the review petitioner cannot seek any indulgence from this CoLrrt. as this Court had already passed a reasoned order dated 17 .02.2r:.)2(), directing the demolition of the structures on the suit propertl, rt'ithin 30 days.

20. Furlhcr, a perusal of Order XLVII Rule t CPC shows that revieu, of a.f rrclgrnent or an order could be sought: (a) on discovery of new ancl inrportar:t matter or evidence whichever after the exercise o1' duc diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (t ) sr-rch irnportant matter or evidence could not be produced by thc applicant at the time when the decree was passed -T * j i r! ! i i I 6 or order made; and (c) on account of some rnistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason.

21. In the present review petition the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, sought to review the order of this Court cannot be considered as the petitioner failed to prove the clairn of the petitioner having stopped the construction work on

01.05.2018 despite acting in disobedience of the injunction order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the trial Court.

22. Further, the review petitioner herein did not answer as to how the construction of ground * five floors carne up on the suit schedule property being contra to the advocate cornmissioners finding over the suit schedule property. Thus, the revier,,, sought in the underlying petition is entirely misconceived and this Court cannot enterlain the said review petition as it would exceed its jurisdiction in allowing the review (See: Devaraju Piltai v. Setlayya Pitla/).

23. It is also to be noted that the petitioner even by the present review petition claims that she would hand over the property to the plaintiff if he succeeds in the suit, which only goes to show that rhe I atR l98z sc I 160 7 petitioner herein has not learnt fi'om her mistakes and on the other hand is tal<inii things for granted including the Courts without any renlorse fbr lu,rong cornmitted. 'fhe said conduct of the petitioner itsclf disentitles her froln granting any reliel'.

24. 'l'hougl. on behalf ol'the petitioner it is contended that the trial Court a:; rvell as appellate court instead of attaching the property under'fir'st limb of Order XXXIX Rule 2,{ CPC ought not to have order,:d lbr civil imprisonrnent. [t is to be noted that it is the discretion ol- the trial Court in the circumstances of the case whether the f irst limb of the Rule 2A CPC is to be invoked or the petsorl who is alleged to have committed breach of its order is to be senl lbr civil irnprisonrnent.

25. [n the tircts of Lhe present case as noted by this Court in order dated 17.02.2020 in CRP. No.25t6 of 2019 the peritioner had not only aced in disobedience of the order of injunction granted by trial Court but also persisted with her claim despite having purchased the subject property which was strbject matter of suit filed against her vendor ancl he having iost the sarre, cannot set up any better title for her to claim, that she would handover the suit schedule 8 property without claiming any equities of the plaintiff if the suit succeeds.

26. Further, in a recent decisior-r, the FJon'ble Supreme Court in has laid down the scopc of review as under: i. A judgnte.nt i.s open to reviety inter alia if there is a mi.stake or un error opparent on the face of the record. ii. A .judgntent pronounced by the court is final, and departu-c .fi-ont thut principle is justified only v,hen circumstances oJ'a subs,tantial ancl comltelling character make it necessary to do so. iii. An crror which i.s not selfevident and has to be detectetl by a proces., o.f reasoning, can hardly be said to be un error apparcnt on the .face of rccord ju"stifying the court to exercise its pou'er o.f revictt'. itt. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule lC:PC, it i.s not perntissible for an erroneous decision to be "rehearct antl correc:ted". v. A rcview petition has a limited purpose and cannot he allou,ed lo be "(tn appeal in clisguise". vi. Under the guise ofrevieu', the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagilate and reargue lhe questions which have alreadl. bcen addressed and decided. vii. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drav'rl process of reasoning on the points where there maS, conceitably be hyo opinions. viii. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment o/ a coordinate or lurger Bench by itself cannot be regardecl as u groundJbr reviev,," The order dated 17.02.2020, of which review is sought, does not fall in any of the afbresaid categories laid down by the l{on'ble Supreme Court. tI i ;i 'I : i : i I i 9

27. It is to be noted that, the review petition, by no nleans, is an appeal in disguise trnd it cannot be entertained everl if such application has becn tiled lbr clarillcation, modification or revier,v of thc order passed lilr the reason tl-rat a party cannot be perrnitted to circumvent or bye-pass the procedure prescribed for hearing a review applictLtion (See: Delhi Administrotion v. Gurrleep Singlt (tbon2).

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Inclio Cuterers (Inrliu) Ltcl. v. Lt. Governor of Delftir, has held as unclcr':

8. It is wel,t__;ltlled tfuil ct par\, i.s ttol cntitlecl lo seak ct reviev, of a Lfi'l ,lelivered rehearing tUd u f csn aecision o-f tn . T-he norntul principle is lhat a .iudgmant pronounced by lhe Court is final, and cleparture fi'om that princ:ipla i.s .itrstiJietl only, v'1ru,, cirarmslurtt:cs o_f a .rubstantial und cttmpailing charctclcr make il neces.tur'.v,to c{o so: Scjjttn,Sin,gh v. Stute of Rajusrhutt [.:llR 1965 SC'8a5 : (1965) I SCR 933,945 ; (1965) I SCJ 377J . ln a civil proc'aL'ding, an applicatiort.for review is entertained onl)t on u ground menlioned in Order4T Rulc I ol- the Code of Civil Proccclure, and in ct proceeding on the_ground oJ'on arror apparent on thc Jiu'a o-f the record (O,der 40 Rule l, Suprcma C'ourt Rulc.s. J2!O=_BU Vhg!9!91_!he nature of'the pr e that a uttlcd v'ith tlrc the case, und the rtncrlit_v of the jui@g )9!il will not bcJ9ge1u49rcd__9yce!!_whcre u glarin{ onltlljetx_ ot" patenl mistake or Iike grave error hus crcpt in earlier by iudicial 'AIR 2ooo sc 3 luso; z scc 3737 ro)'-" 4 ,i 10 (, .fallibilit:,": Sow Chandra Kantev. Sheikh Habib l(1975) t SCC 674 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 200 : (1975) _rSC? 933J .

29. In the light of the tbregoing discussion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the said order dated 17 .02.2020 passed by this Court in in CRp No. 25 l6 ol'

2019. Accordir-rgly, the review application fails and is hereby disrnissed.

30. Further, in so far cRP No. I 46 of 2021, this court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightty issued warrant ol' arrest against respondent for detention in civil imprisonment upon failure to cornply the directions passed by this Court vide ord,er dated 17.02.2020 in CRP No.25l6 of 2019.

31. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to intert'ere with the irnpugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

32. Accordingly, review application No.0 | of 2020 in CRP No 2516 of 2019 and C.l{.P No. 146 of 2021 are devoid of merit and are dismissed. Lt Conseouently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. / SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR l, ) G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Vlll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar One CC to Mr. tM.P. Chandramouli, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to Sri G. Venugopal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 Kam/PSL & '{ i HIGH COURT DATED i2810712025 I I ORDER CRP.No.146 of 2021 ./, ii.:,1;L' jl r-, rl'.' /( B 4 llr1l 2025 * .'.-.'::,, -.iirIl {t * DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION b J Ar