HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No v. 1. Gurucharan Singh S/o Late

Judgment

1. Gurucharan Singh S/o Late Shri Pyara Singh, R/o House No. 362, Kasim Gali, Kota Junction (Raj.). ---Appellant/Defendant

2. Smt. Rajni Sethi W/o Rajkumar Sehti, D/o Late Shri Pyara Singh, R/o Ballabhbadi, Near Gurudwara, Gumanpura, Kota. ---Respondent/Plaintiff

4. Shriram Fertilizer, Through Manager, Shriram Nagar, Kota.

Krishan Kumar Kaul S/o Shri Namalum, Vice President F And T Department Shri Ram Fertilizer, Shri Ram Nagar, Kota.

5. Smt. Harjeet Kaur (Harsdeep Kaur) W/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Through A.s. Bedi Commissioner (Cost And Income Tax) Parijat, 11/31, Film Studio Road, Deenroshi Road, Malad, (East) Mumbai(Maharastra).

6. Harvinder Singh S/o Late Shri Mahednra Singh, R/o Through A.s. Bedi Commissioner (Cost And Income Tax) Parijat 11/31, Film Studio Road, Deenroshi Road, Amalad (East) Mumbai(Maharastra).

7. Shri Arvind Goyal S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad Goyal, At Present Residing At 15-A Vallabh Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan.

8. Smt. Purnima Goyal W/o Shri Arvind Goyal, At Present Residing At 15-A Vallabh Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan.

9. Shri Gaurav Goyal S/o Shri Arvind Goyal, At Present Residing At 15-A Vallabh Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (2 of 9) [CRW-62/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava and Ms. Sara Parveen Ms. Harshita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi with Mr. Kartik Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 21/05/2025 Order

1. The instant review petition is preferred by the petitioner- respondent (applicant) aggrieved from order dated 31.05.2024 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.352/2006 titled as Gurucharan Singh Vs. Rajni Sethi and Ors. This petitioner-applicant Pawan Kumar Gupta is respondent No.9 in second appeal.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant- petitioner submitted that the instant review petition is preferred from observation in para Nos.13 and 18 of impugned order dated

31.05.2024, which are contrary to law settled and against true facts of the case. He further submitted that this Hon’ble Court has observed in para No.13 that Gurucharan Singh expired in 2021 and all proceedings including impleadment of respondent Nos.6 to 8 or Pawan Kumar Gupta were ordered only after death of Gurucharan Singh. He submitted that the order to implead respondent Nos.6 to 8 and respondent No.9 Pawan Kumar Gupta is passed after death of Gurucharan Singh, which is contrary to settled law. He submitted that the order of impleadment was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court and if any [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (3 of 9) [CRW-62/2024] one aggrieved from order, then he may file a SLP (Civil) before Hon’ble Supreme Court but any observation upon order passed by another Co-ordinate Bench is against settled norms and against pyramid of discipline, therefore, he submitted that para No.13 of the order required to be reviewed and deleted from impugned order. He also referred para No.18 and submitted that the finding is against the decree passed in favour of Pawan Kumar Gupta, and also contrary to record, so may be scrapped from the order.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that order 47 Rule 1 CPC empowers the Court to correct mistake and error on face of record, which includes wrong application of law and this Hon’ble Court is empowered to review the para Nos.13 and 18 of impugned judgment. He also submitted that if these two paragraphs continue to remain as a part of the judgment then it would adversely impact the interest of the present applicant- petitioner.

4. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court in case of Narayani Krishnan Vs. Union of India and Anr. : WA No.1663/2020 (DOJ-11th January, 2021) and submitted that the observation in para No.13 is contrary to discipline required to be observed by a Single Bench while considering order of another Single Bench.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicant Nos.7 to 9. He further referred the judgment in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through legal representatives and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others : (2021) 13 SCC 1 and submitted that when [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (4 of 9) [CRW-62/2024] a judgment/order has been passed on merits then same cannot be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. He further submitted that only error or mistake whether it is typographical or clerical or arithmetical, can be corrected but there is no error on face of record, then, a review petition may be liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of review petitioner-applicant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-applicants. Perused the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties.

7. A S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.352/2006 was filed by the defendant-appellant Guru Charan Singh after dismissal of Civil Regular Appeal No.32/2005 on 07.04.2006 by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Kota, whereby the judgment and decree dated

15.01.2004 in Civil Suit No.53/2002 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 (South) Kota was affirmed.

8. During pendency of Civil Second Appeal No.352/2006, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta for impleading him as respondent No.9 in the appeal. On dated 05.09.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed following order:- “For the reasons stated in the application No.1/2023 filed by the applicant-Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as respondent No.9, which is not opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same is allowed. The applicant-Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta is impleaded as respondent No.9. The amended cause title appended with the application is also taken on record.” [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (5 of 9) [CRW-62/2024]

9. Later, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by respondent No.9 for transposition as appellant. During pendency of this application, a reply was filed by original respondent Nos.6 to 8 and on dated 21.03.2024, it was informed that original appellant Gurucharan Singh was expired somewhere in 2021 and no steps were taken to implead legal representatives of original appellant Gurucharan Singh. This matter was adjourned on multiple occasions and ultimately on 31.05.2024, the appeal was dismissed in abatement. Simultaneously, an application for transposition filed by respondent No.9 Pawan Kumar Gupta (present-applicant) was also dismissed.

10. The material on record indicate that in report dated

06.11.2023 by a Process Server of District Court, Kota, in Civil Suit No.348/2014, it was mentioned that Gurucharan Singh expired two years before and his house was found locked. The respondent Nos.6 to 8 in their reply dated 07.03.2024 have mentioned the fact of death of original appellant Gurucharan Singh. If in a Civil Suit No.348/2014 titled as Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. Gurucharan Singh, this fact was brought on record that Gurucharan Singh has expired then it was duty of respondent No.9 Pawan Kumar Gupta to bring this fact on record in the Second Appeal No.352/2006 but he has not taken steps to bring this fact on record. The bona fide of Pawan Kumar Gupta is not proved from said act.

11. On 05.09.2023, the application for impleadment filed by Pawan Kumar Gupta was allowed only because the counsel for the appellant has not opposed the application, which clearly indicate [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (6 of 9) [CRW-62/2024] that a coordinate bench has not considered merits of the claim of applicant. The fact clearly indicate Gurucharan Singh died somewhere in 2021 and nowhere it was mentioned that when he has last contacted his appointed counsel in S.B. Civil Second Appeal. The order-sheet dated 02.07.2021 indicate that no one was present on behalf of appellant. Similarly, on 30.03.2023, no one was present on behalf of appellant even in second round, but thereafter, on 07.07.2023 and 13.07.2023, learned counsel for the appellant was present and on 13.07.2023, application for impleadment of Arvind, Anand, Purnima Goyal was allowed but only after death of appellant Gurucharan Singh.

12. The power and authority given to the counsel has come to an end after death of appellant. A counsel can given consent to allow any suit/appeal/revision or application only under the instruction of his client or litigant. He has no authority to extend any concession or consent on his own, particularly, when he has already expired at least one and half year before such consent. Herein, after passing of order dated 31.05.2024, learned counsel for appellant has not moved any application to show that the counsel was under instruction not to oppose Application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of Pawan Kumar Gupta and other persons.

13. After considering the submissions, this Court has passed following observation in para No.13:- “13. A perusal of the entire record indicates that the appellant Gurucharan Singh has expired in 2021 or about the same time, therefore all proceedings after the death of appellant in the instant second appeal are a nullity. The concession [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (7 of 9) [CRW-62/2024] granted for impleadment of respondent No. 6 to 8 or to Pawan Kumar Gupta are not in accordance with law, as the power or authority of counsel terminated after death of appellant-defendant.”

14. In case of Narayani Krishnan Vs.Union of India and Anr. (supra), Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court while referring judgment in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi : AIR 1962 Guj 128, Sundaradas Kanyalal Bhathija Vs. The Collector, Thane : AIR 1991 SC 1893 and CIT Vs. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. [(1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bombay)] has explained the rule of discipline required to be followed while being as a Judge. The observation in para No.13 clearly indicate that this Court has raised issue of concession granted by the counsel for the appellant and not observed anything about the order passed by a Co- ordinate Bench. The impugned order speaks about act and authority of counsel of a dead party.

15. The submissions of learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner are not helpful in the instant case. Similarly, the judgments as referred by him is also not applicable, as the observation in para No.13 is based on facts and it shows that any party may have concealed the real facts and in current day’s litigation, such type of tricks are well possible.

16. Even Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed about litigants in case of Ramjas Foundation and another Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6662/2004) and terms them as a new creed of litigants do not have any respect for truth and they [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (8 of 9) [CRW-62/2024] shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.

17. Similarly, an objection is also raised about para No.18 and we are reproducing para No.18 as under:- “18. Herein this case the reply submitted by respondent Nos. 6 to 8 indicate that Pawan Kumar Gupta has filed a suit for possession, declaration, perpetual injunction and rendition of account in the year 2009. Similarly, a civil suit No. 10/2009 was filed by Hardeep Kaur against Gurucharan Singh, Rajni Sethi and Pawan Kumar Gupta and same was decreed on 08.10.2015, wherein sale deed dated 09.06.2003 in favor of Pawan Kumar Gupta was declared as null and void qua Hardeep Kaur who is respondent No.4 and counter-claim is decreed in her favor, against which present appeal is filed.”

18. The observation in para No.18 are factual observation which were part of record and referred from the material placed on record. Therefore, para No.18 is not a finding rather it is a factual matrix of the case. It is duty of a Court to pass an unambiguous and reasoned order so that any party who is currently facing a litigation, should know from the order itself what was the real controversy and how his case is pleaded by his counsel before the Court and what facts the Court gathered from the material on record. A cryptic and non-reasoned order is never appreciable. Though, it is not mandatory to pass a detailed order but it must show some application of mind. Therefore, the para No.18 is based on factual aspect reproduced by this Court.

19. Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC provides for review of any order passed by the Court but the power of review under Section 114 of CPC or under Order 47 of CPC cannot be considered as review of [2025:RJ-JP:21695] (9 of 9) [CRW-62/2024] its own judgment on merits. The limitations on exercise of power of review are well settled, therefore, this Court cannot go beyond the power of review as settled till date.

20. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred judgment in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through legal representatives and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring several judgments and legal position, has laid down that a review can be allowed on three specific grounds, namely:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on face of record; and (iii) For any other sufficient reason.

21. In view of discussion made hereinabove, there is no mistake or error on the face on record. Therefore, this review petition is beyond the scope of Section 114 or Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and same is liable to be dismissed.

22. As a result, the instant Civil Review Petition is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. MR/76 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J