Judges Name: Hon’ble Judges Ashok Bhushan J & M.R. Shah J 

Order dated: 03.11.2020 

Facts of the case:

• Shri Ram Sahu, the predecessor of the appellants herein instituted Civil Suit No.04A of 2005 before the Learned Trial Court against the respondents herein original defendants for declaration of registered Sale Deed dated 25.03.1995 executed by original defendant no.3 in favour of original defendant nos. 1 & 2 regarding House No.28/955 (previous House No.3/1582), situated in Sube Ki Payga, Jiwajiganj, Lashkar, as null and void and for permanent injunction against defendant nos. 1 & 2 restraining defendant nos. 1 & 2 from transferring the disputed property to any other person. The original plaintiff Shri Ram Sahu claimed the ownership of the disputed property on the basis of the will executed by one Chhimmabai executed in his favour on 19.10.1993. The original plaintiff also claimed that he became the sole owner on the death of the Chhimmabai and possession holder of the entire house and in the same capacity; he is in continuous possession over the same.
• The Learned Trial Court held that the defence had proved that defendant No.3 was adopted by Ghasilal on 26.01.1985 which was got registered later on by Chhimmabai vide Adoption Deed dated 13.05.1992. The original plaintiff – appellant herein preferred First Appeal No.241 of 2005 before the High Court.
• The High Court has allowed the review application and has ordered to delete para 20 of the Judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 passed in First Appeal No.241 of 2005, by observing that as regards the possession of the disputed property the issue of possession was neither raised before the Learned Trial Court nor before the First Appellate Court and even no issue with respect to possession was framed by the Learned Trial Court. 
• The Supreme court discussed the issue that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified in allowing the review application in exercise of powers under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC on the aforesaid grounds?

Supreme Court held:

• The Supreme Court observed that the word review implies an act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction. The court remarked that it cannot be denied that review is a creation of statute. The court relying on various case laws held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must either be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. 
• The court elaborated the scope of Section 114 of CPC and held that an order can be reviewed by a court only on the prescribed mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An Application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review. 
• The Supreme Court held that the High Court had clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the provision and had erred in deleting para 20 in exercise of power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The court held that the High Court committed a grave error and the impugned order is unsustainable. It further held that the powers of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be exercised as an inherent power or an appellate power.
• Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Review Petition No.465 of 2015 in First Appeal No.241 of 2005.