KASHMIRI DEVI Vs. LEKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition is directed against the orders rendered on 1.9.2011 by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in CMPMO No. 647 of 2009.

(2.) THE facts necessary for rendering an adjudication on this petition are of a suit having been instituted at the instance of the plaintiffs/respondents herein for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants/petitioners herein. The plaintiffs/respondents herein during the pendency of the suit had moved an application before the learned trial Court under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an ad interim injunction against the defendants/petitioners herein from the latter taking exclusive possession, forcibly occupying the office and other accounts and from selling the product (pucca bricks) of firm M/s Maa Durga Bhatha Co. Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. till the disposal of the civil suit. The learned trial Court was constrained to, on a consideration of the material as displayed before it grant ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. The defendants/petitioners herein carried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Una, who took a view contrary to the view taken by the learned trial Court and consequently, the relief as afforded in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein by the learned trial Court was declined. The plaintiffs/respondents herein preferred a CMPMO No. 647 of 2009 before this Court against the order rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the learned District Judge and this Court while deciding CMPMO No. 647 of 2009 sustained the view as taken by the learned District Judge, yet in paragraph No. 12 of its order for protecting the rights and interest of all the partners of the un -dissolved partnership firm rendered certain directions as enunciated in clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the paragraph No. 12.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to adjudicate upon the tenacity and strength of the contention addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners herein, it is necessary that this Court equip itself with the parameters enshrined in a catena of judicial verdicts qua exercise of review jurisdiction. In M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, : AIR 1980 SC 674, paragraph No. 8 whereof is extracted hereinafter, it has been contemplated that a party asking or seeking review of the judgment delivered by a Court cannot in the garb of seeking review, propose a rehearing or a fresh decision of the case, rather it has been postulated therein that a review jurisdiction is not equivalent to nor can be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by a Court whose judgment is proposed to be reviewed, will not be reviewed unless there is a patent mistake therein or a grave error has crept in therein earlier by judicial fallibility. Paragraph No. 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: -