Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
In this appeal, the appellant
challenges an order made in review whereby the first appeal, which had
allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, has now been
dismissed. This matter arises out of the following facts:
2. The appellant herein, vide sale deed dated 27th December 1971,
purchased a property bearing site No.6 in 3rd block, Muneshwara Block,
Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore-3, and as per Schedule "A" and "B" with the
plaint the property was identified by specific boundaries
as well. On 26th October 1993 the appellant herein filed a suit for
declaration and possession of the Schedule `B' property which was in
possession of the defendant respondent. The suit was contested by the
defendant- respondent. The trial court however decreed the suit on
22nd January 1991. The defendant-respondent thereupon filed a
first appeal in the High Court of Karnataka and the said appeal
was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16th February 1999. The
respondent thereafter filed a review petition on 14th November
1999. A notice was issued to the present appellant in the review
application and objections were filed thereto as well. The learned
Single Judge, however, vide order dated 26th February 2001, allowed the
appeal by reviewing his earlier order and dismissed the suit. It is in
this circumstance that the present appeal is before us.
3. During the course of hearing, the
learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that a bare perusal of
the order in review would reveal that it is based on a complete
re-appreciation of the matter on facts and the provisions of Order 47
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which would govern an application
for review, have been completely ignored. It has been submitted by the
counsel that the Single Judge had, in the first judgment, examined the
facts and dismissed the appeal and on a reconsideration of the same
facts, had allowed the same, which was not justified. We find merit in
this plea. From a bare perusal of the judgment in review, it is clear
that the principles laid down under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC have been
completely ignored. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order
in review dated 26th February 2001 and dismiss the appeal in the suit.
We, however, give liberty to the respondent herein to challenge the
judgment dated 16th February 1999, if so advised.
4. There will, however, be no order
as to costs.
Print This Judgment