GOVIND POOJARA Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for specific performance between the parties wherein interim injunction was also sought restraining the defendant respondent for alienating the property, the interim injunction had been granted by the trial court, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 150/95 was filed by the defendant before this Court which was decided on 1-5-1997 by the Hon'ble Justice Kejriwal (now retired). The appellate Court after hearing the parties had modified the order of interim injunction to the effect that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive rent from the respondents 2 to 6 pending the suit and the defendant tenants were directed to make the payment of the rent to the defendant appellant Mohanlal. It was further ordered that in case the plaintiff appellant wanted to sell the disputed property, he had to mention in the sale-deed itself that a civil suit is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur city, for specific performance of the disputed property so that the transferee be impleaded in the suit in future in case the suit is decreed. Following order was passed :

(2.) The petitioner has moved the present application for review of the above said order. So far as payment of rent is concerned, the counsel is not pressing the review on that aspect. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it and also the mistake is apparent on the face of record and, therefore, a review is required to be ordered with further submission that it is not possible for the petitioner to keep a watch as to when the other parties shall sell the properties. I might have agreed with him on the point that in a suit for specific performance for registration of the property basing on a sale-deed, the appellate Court either could have granted the injunction as prayed for or rejected the same in toto. The bare reading of the order mentioned above clearly shows that so far as the order of the interim injunction of alienating the property is concerned, that impliedly stands set aside by the order of Justice Kejriwal.

(3.) The question which arises in the present case is that whether a review application is maintainable if such like an order is passed as reproduced above. To my opinion, no review is maintainable. The order can be highly erroneous, illegal or wrong. But that is not the scope of the review petition. It had been so held by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sheik Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500, Sunil Kumar Jain v. Kishan, AIR 1995 SC 1891. Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, 1997 SAR (Civil) SC 889 and Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, AIR 1995 SC 455.