KATRAGADDA GOPALA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point in this review petition is whether the decision in the Revision with regard to Ex. A-12 agreement of sale, which is as under: "With regard to the lands said to have been sold under Ex. A 12, agreement of sale, I do not think interference is called for with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the petitioner". could be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P,C. The case is that the petitioner herein had originally gifted Ac. 5-26 cents of land in favour of an educational institution and also donated a sum of Rs 50,000/- as per Exs. A-8 and A-10. These sums are said to have been realised out of the sale proceeds of lands covered by Exs. A-12 and A-18. The question was whether the possession of the vendees over the extents covered by Exs. A-12 and A-18 were substantiated. The primary Tribunal held that the agreements of sale Exs. A-12 and A-18 have been sub stantiated and that the lands covered by these agreements of sale were in possession and enjoyment of the vendees and also held that the donation has been made from out of the sale proceeds, which was evidenced under Exs.A-7 and A-6 and also Exs.A-8 and A-10. In that view of the matter the agreements of sale were upheld. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the transactions covered by Exs. A 12 and A-18 are sham and nominal, in view of the fact that the original Adangals were called for and they were looked into and then concluded that there were said to be some interpolations and hence the agreements of sale were not held substantiated. This was challenged in revision and the revisional Court has held in one sentence under point No. 1 as under: "With regard to the lands said to have been sold under Ex.A-12, agreement of sale, I do not think interference is called for with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. though it allowed the transaction covered by Ex. A-18. It is this decision that is challenged in this review.

(2.) The contention is that it is open for this Court to review an order if the court did not affectively deal with an issue, as it amounts 10 an error apparent on the face of the record. Reliance was placed on the following decisions. In Mahadeva Rayar vs. Sappani (1) I.L.R. (1)Madras page 396 it is held as under: Where a Judge has, in deciding a case, omitted to consider the effect of important documentary evidence filed with the plaint which was not taken issue upon, and which materially affects the merits of the case, he is competent under Sections 376 to 378 of Act of VIII of 1859 to grant a review and rehear the case". In M.M.B.Catholicos vs. M.P.Athanasius (2) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. page 526, which has been decided by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court, it is held: "The majority judgments, therefore, are defective on the face of them in that they did not effectively deal with and determine an important issue in the case on which depends the title of the plaintiffs and the maintainability of the suit. This, in our opinion, is certainly an error apparent on the face of the record". In Hari Vishnu vs. Ahmad Ishaque (3) A I. R. 1955 S.C. page 233 the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court comprising 7 Judges, held : "The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indetiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case".

(3.) The counter contention of the learned Government Pleader is that it is not competent for this Court to review unless there is a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking to review or where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in A.T. Sharma vs. A.P.Sharma (4) A.I.R, 1979 S.C. page 1047,where in the learned Judges Sarkaria and Chinnappa Reddy, JJ., held: "It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) there is nothing in Art 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction Uvprevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apperent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the provinceof a Court of appeal".