RAMCHANDRA Vs. RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition is directed against the judgment dated 17 -4 -1987 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SB. Civil Second Appeal No. 458 of 1975: Ram Gopal v. Ram Chandra, whereby he has upheld the finding of the learned trial court that the ground taken by the plaintiff for ejectment of defendant from the suit premises on the basis of reasonable and bonafide necessity stands proved. As the question of comparative hardship was not gone into by both the courts below, the case was remanded back to the trial court for taking the evidence afresh and to record its finding on that issue and to remit the findings to this Court. After receipt of the findings, the learned Single Judge held that the plaintiff would us put to greater hardship than the defendant if decree for ejectment in respect of the suit -shop is not passed in his favour. Even at the time, no contention was raised that the question of partial eviction has not been gone into by the learned lower courts. How ever, at the time of final decision of the case on 17 -4 -1986, the learned Single Judge felt that the same be remanded to the learned trial court for deciding the question as to whether the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff -landlord will be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant -defendant from a part only of shop situated in Tehsil Chowk Nagaur as contemplated in second part of Section 14(2) of the Act. This review petition has been filed against this very direction of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) WHILE hearing the review petition earlier, initially, it was held that notice has been served on the non -petitioner and, therefore, the review petition was decided by me vide order dated 11 -5 -1987. While deciding the review petition, it was held that the case need not be remanded back for deciding the question as to whether partial eviction of the non -petitioner will satisfy the personal and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff -petitioner as envisaged by Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). It was further held that this case is of a single tenament and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant -respondent was decreed for his eviction from the suit -premises. Thereafter, the defendant -non -petitioner filed an application that he was not properly served in this petition. This Court vide its order dated 21 -9 -1987 allowed that application and it was ordered that the review petition be listed for rehearing and consequently, this review petition was re -heard on 28 -8 -1988.

(3.) MR . Calla has further placed reliance on a decision of the Orissa High Court in Manu Pujhari v. State of Orissa : AIR1965Ori49 , wherein it has been observed: Order 47, Rule 1. covers both cases of review on grounds of mistake or error of fact as well as of law provided it is apparent on the face of the record. If the Court applies its mind to a particular fact or law and then comes to a wrong conclusion after conscious reasoning, it can never be contended that the error is one apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected by it. Correction of such mistaken conclusion does not come within the ambit of purview of review. But an error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness is one apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, an error of fact or law justifying a review under Section 47, Rule 1 must, in all cases be an error of inadvertance. In AIR Commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by Act No. 104 of 1976), the learned Authors W.W. Chitaley and V.B. Bakhale have observed (Order 47, Rule 1, CPC No. 168 page 1091): that a review can be granted in a case where the Court has failed to consider important facts on record where the Court has failed to consider an important plea or issue.