Rajendra Prasad Others v. Shri Santosh Kumar and others

Judgment

1. The present Review Application No. 5167 of 2025 (filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1) and Review Application No. 5162 of 2025 (filed on 1 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J.

2. behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) in WritPetition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively, has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment and order dated

18.06.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 connected with Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017. Since the review applications in both matters rest on identical grounds and challenge the same reasoning of this court, they have been heard together and are being

disposed of by this common order.

3. It is further noted that the dispute pertains to agricultural land situated in Village Bairagarh, Patti Udaipur-2, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal, comprising Khasra Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 10, measuring 38 nalis and 3 mutthi, as well as land situated in Village Bhaildunga, Patti Udaipur, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal, recorded in Khata No. 14, measuring 9 nalis and 3 mutthi, wherein different khasra numbers stand recorded from time to time due to record operations. Both sets of land formed the subject matter of Revenue Suit No. 33 of 2012 (Village Bairagarh) and Revenue Suit No. 32 of 2012 (Village Bhaildunga), which were tried together and decided concurrently by the revenue courts.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, Defendant No. 1, Smt. Darshani Devi who passed away on 21.08.2013. The question of substitution of her legal heirs and the consequence of non-substitution became central. The Board of Revenue, by judgment dated 04.05.2017, held that the suit abated in its entirety owing to non-substitution of legal heirs.

5. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. By judgment dated 18.06.2025, this Court set aside the 2 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J. Board’s order, holding that the abatement was applied on an unduly technical basis and that the matter deserved adjudication on merits. The Court also dealt with the rival claims relating to ownership, adverse possession, and the evidentiary value of certain unregistered instruments.

6. It is this judgment dated 18.06.2025 that is sought to be reviewed through the present review applications under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before dealing with the grounds urged in the present review applications, it is considered appropriate to restate the governing principles relating to the scope of review. Review is not to be treated as an appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction is narrow and confined to limited contingencies, namely, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time the order was made, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason which is analogous to the first two. An error apparent is one which is self-evident on a mere look at the order, and not one which requires a process of long drawn reasoning to establish.

9. The Review Applicants have marshalled several planks of challenge which may, for convenient consideration, be grouped under the following heads: (i) First, the alleged procedural errors concerning abatement on account of the death of a defendant and the effect of Order 3 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J. XXII Rules 4 and 10A CPC in revenue litigation in view of Section 333 read with Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; (ii) Secondly, the alleged misrecording or non-recording of submissions and authorities; (iii) Thirdly, challenges to this Court’s appreciation of title and adverse possession, including the use of unregistered instruments and the plea that a co-sharer cannot prescribe against another; (iv) Fourthly, the contention that the petition under Article 227 ought to have been non-suited on the ground of the existence of an alternate statutory remedy; and (v) Fifthly, objection to the imposition of costs and to certain factual observations. These heads encapsulate the affidavit grounds, which run from paragraphs 1 to 29 of the review affidavit.

10. Firstly, it is submitted that the original revenue suit abated in toto upon the expiry of the limitation following the death of Smt. Darshani Devi, and that the Board of Revenue had only applied the consequence of non- substitution. It is contended that Order XXII Rule 10A CPC is merely directory, and that this Court committed a patent error in interfering with the finding of abatement.

11. The record of the judgment under review, however, demonstrates that this Court examined the approach of the Board as hyper-technical and considered the impact of the parties already on record and the nature of the dispute before the revenue forums. The complaint raised in review, namely that the State made no submissions or that presence and participation were misrecorded, even if assumed arguendo, would at best disclose a slip in 4 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J. expression and not an error apparent on the face of the record going to the core reasoning. A review cannot be invoked to reopen the merits of the abatement issue, which already stood adjudicated after hearing.

12. Order XXII Rule 10A CPC casts a duty on counsel to inform the Court of the death of a party. Whether such duty is directory or mandatory, and what consequence follows, are questions of legal interpretation which were already urged in the writ hearing, with reliance placed upon authorities such as United Bank of India v. Kanan Bala Devi, 1987 Supp SCC 85, and Katari Suryanarayana v. Koppisetti Subba Rao, (2009) 11 SCC 183. Reliance upon authorities that were available and pressed earlier does not by itself disclose any self-evident mistake in the impugned judgment. The view taken by this Court that the Board had adopted an unduly narrow and technical approach is a possible view on the materials.

13. It is further contended that the submissions advanced by the counsel for the Review Applicants were not recorded in sufficient detail and that certain authorities cited were not discussed seriatim. The omission to refer to each and every submission or to all reported decisions does not, without more, amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Unless it is demonstrably shown that a material point was not considered at all and further that such consideration would have inevitably led to a different result, review jurisdiction is not attracted.

14. The challenge to this Court’s appreciation of adverse possession and title proceeds on two tracks. The first is that a co-sharer cannot prescribe against another without proof of ouster with particulars of date, month and year and continuous hostile possession, for which reliance is placed upon 5 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J. Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316, Nanjegowda v. Ramegowda, (2018) 1 SCC 574.

15. The second is that reliance upon unregistered and under-stamped instruments is impermissible in view of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Both these aspects plainly invite a re-appreciation of the evidence and a re-adjudication of questions consciously dealt with in the judgment under review. Review is not available to reassess oral or documentary material or to supplant this Court’s appreciation with that urged by the unsuccessful party.

16. Further, even an unregistered instrument may, subject to law, be looked into for a collateral purpose, such as the nature of possession. This is a matter of legal application and not a self-evident error.

17. The plea of alternate remedy is essentially a jurisdictional contention that was available and, by the Review Applicants’ own showing, was urged at the time of hearing. Whether a High Court in supervisory jurisdiction should entertain a petition despite the existence of an alternative remedy depends on the nature of the infirmity alleged and the facts of the case.

18. The decision of this Court to exercise jurisdiction is not amenable to review merely on the ground that the Review Applicants believes the bar of an alternate remedy ought to have prevailed. No new circumstance has been brought on record to demonstrate that this Court overlooked any binding bar which would have mandated dismissal of the petition.

19. Proceeding further, exception is taken to factual observations, including the inference that the Respondents had derailed the judicial process or suppressed material facts, as well as to the imposition of costs. Costs are a matter of judicial discretion. Unless it is shown that such 6 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J. discretion was vitiated by non-consideration of a mandatory factor or by reliance upon a patent misstatement which directly affected the outcome, review will not lie. In the present case, the Review Applicants only seeks to persuade this Court to reconsider the discretion already exercised on the merits, which is beyond the limited remit of review.

20. The Review Applicants also urges that a judgment rendered against a dead person is a nullity and that non-substitution rendered all subsequent proceedings void. This submission was part of the abatement theme and was considered in the reasons recorded for interference with the Board’s order. In review, it is not enough to assert a proposition of law; the Applicants must demonstrate a self-evident error in its application that changes the result. That threshold is not crossed in the present affidavit.

21. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents that there are inaccuracies in the narration of the presence and participation of parties and that the judgment under review proceeded on assumptions regarding who was on record. The appearance chart and the cause list portion of the writ record belie the suggestion that the observation was wholly unfounded. In any event, even if there is a minor imprecision, it does not impinge upon the ratio decidendi of the judgment. At best, such aspects may be noticed and clarified, but they are not grounds for reopening the adjudication.

22. No new and important matter or evidence, unavailable despite due diligence at the time of the writ hearing, has been shown. No error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated. The grounds urged are, in substance, a reiteration of what was argued and rejected, or what could have been urged with greater emphasis at the original hearing. Review 7 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J. jurisdiction is corrective, not curative of supposed inadequacies in advocacy, and not a platform for a second round on merits.

23. The principle of finality of judicial decisions requires that once a matter has been adjudicated upon after full consideration, it should not be reopened except in rare cases where the strict conditions for review are met. If a review were to be entertained on the grounds now urged, it would amount to permitting the applicants to reargue the entire case, which is impermissible.

24. The review jurisdiction is corrective, not appellate. It exists to rectify manifest mistakes or to take note of material evidence genuinely overlooked, and not to revisit every conclusion of fact or law. To allow otherwise would unsettle settled rights and erode the sanctity of judgments, leading to endless litigation. This Court, therefore, must guard against diluting the limited nature of review by permitting matters already adjudicated upon to be reopened under the guise of “error apparent”. ORDER In view of the discussion recorded above, this Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record and no discovery of new or important matter warranting interference. The grounds urged are, in substance, a reiteration of submissions already considered. Accordingly, the Review Applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated: 22.09.2025 Ashish Naithani, J. 8 Review Applications no. 5167 of 2025 and 5162 of 2025 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1158 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1157 of 2017 respectively Ashish Naithani J.