M/S Haji K Abdul Khader vs Sri Thimothy D’Souza on 11 November, 2008

28 <3-ants and, as such, ta meet the ends of gizstice,

review of the judg1ne11t rexldered by this <:;r3;1:;'t_.t mg:

secand appeal, therefom, is necsssary.

4, The learrled senior ceunzéel t.3.u§:{

paramount inttizrest of that: _courts._ 1:31″. }a.w -;i;’-3. ivtci r£§ride19′ ,

justice and if the court. thé’e1fE:¥c::f pfgssed was
under a mistake: “if the is actmptad as a

valid reasorx, £11631 fh€..ffC13I”t_ f1a$.”‘eve*i§;— “power to resafl

the 0:rdt=ii*’ “”Ff1::fcfo14é_;”rr3i’erri11g 1:0 the documents

now Sgafight id v.3Lf.;::*1%’a:~c:c}1;-1c¢=:~;d along with the review

petitign, ‘£Efi%’3 V5Llv§Z}.El1i§’3_Si€§f} is made tllat there can be 110

” V’ f@’ti:;é:rs.;~ 011» the gfiéwér of this court to review its own

rggard to the grotmds mentioned

fiiflfier Rule 1 of ‘€115: (::aPaQ’:s and 11116 case 0f the

;;e:i<:i:;;j;-::~ra;1s Wiihifl the ambit 9:' the ma gonna viz,

far _}3.ny Othfil" sufficient reasan, and, therefara, placing

_,,_.§'€Iianc€ can the decisions of the Apex (3oL1:'t: repeated in

A.£.R. 2688 SACE. "3719 and 1993 Supp (4) S.C'.Ci, 595, the

iaamed senier cmifis/(E21 stabmmeci that as there is an

,4-

5
ermr appazmzt on the face of the record in the judgment

rendsred by this ccxurt, a case: is made 03.1′: for review of

the said judgzent of {his court.

5′ (3-11 the other harzd, % ieamed

Sa1%1athku:In3.r Siietty for the reSfi€)i1(?:«=;1″:~£: s11¥;A$fi1 iF;t¢¥:i:V”tIi2t

C’

the petitioner has fajied to _ma1<:-: Lii:._a ::ase1g ft)? ;i*c:vE4éivA by

the ju::1@1€n'{ rendered by ‘f;fi;:’1S»court”

the instaxat, case 15.33194: 01″iéH;iri93:flc£iiL’-attiacfé; ;é}.I1§; Of the
t.h1’6:e §”0uz1ds 1I1<-*:11ti0r1<:5«:1AV_Vt;i*;€i<%iV1* Rule 1 of the

{.1i.i?.C; """ E:itg;bdfg:s1*c§:1g.9th,e Saifi-kubmission, the iearrxed
co12nS§e}, a;~gt:e§:i '@101; a case: of any new ground

being dis:z:'<;"2xre're:*,ci'V,a1':»5_i inipc3rtant mattar 01' evidence being

" _ 'kfififwiedge of the petitioner zzvan afier

_ '<~:§; ::*1"::i'sse s:«f" diiigence and it is not 3. case coming

E;3.'I1bit 01' the third gound v§:«:., 'a.:1:1y ether

sufiiclent reasun. 'I'hc=:ref0re, though the rsvmw

g3c:_fiti0:1e:r dici take a Stand in the WI'itt<%:11 statemazat

__2ib0ut the occupalzcy righm being :10: granted to the

msp<:=:'1d€r1¥;, yet, the review p€t:iti011er did net _press the

said cozitentien muflfuxthar eiflmr before the triai

court; 01* before: the lower appeilate Court or fqij that

;:’3:1;é§;1t Inatitc’z”V.ci§{,§e:é”:,1″i£:ét <:ome

iflto the picture.

6. As far as the geurgtii «if due _.<;1iii.g'$i3«:;€ is concerned,

tha learned :C0fiIiS€1 filed by the

reviewjiiéii1:j§I1e1*'7;':i<:ft51*::-L"'£his E:6urt along with the review
pf3tii1i(§i'-'1 its :§ubVIi;§1;.:i1a';t'T"tk;:*; review petitioner has clearly

stated ti1éi~~1j'€: :J1Vic'i i';9£""fi1'oduce the dGCL1I'i1€I13ZS thinking

£1233 a3tl}efV';'§idé wauid Qroduca the 53:n:1<:: and,

~ €'_'{"1i_;:s explazlation effaréd by the review

}§;'i$eif establishfis that the rfiview pe:titi:::n<:1'

was f'1'3 _§JOSS€S$i0I1 of the ciacunxents in quimtian but, he

difi 319: produce the same for T.'€:':E1SGI1S best k:n0wI": ti) him

__-rind, '{:h<5::'e.fo1*e, having :1v.::~t bean diiigent, it is net 013611 to

the I'(i'f¥.?i€W petitioner new {:0 seek for ireviéw of £116

jL1dg1":1eI1t 0:3 the gaund of pmduction sf additicsnai

b

. o

7
. . f .

d9<.:u111€:I1t.s. Even the ground viz, anther sufficlam

'1
reassn, alss does net get attracted to the izlstajilt-_c:ase

because, even on merits, the trial court hats.-:~~ftj'g;n'1_:.§".j*t.1i"¢3,,t

the deffindant had concacied of it being 'a, L.1:z.:1Tdé:_j

the: respendtzznt. herein u;r;.der a ;:'eg's'1ies:-*::d._

after the expiry of the least: _t€HH," clefttfifiaiaf 1)§=3;cz§¥.,;113.<§:",,

a te:t1a1"1t holding over =..i_Vi1f1f:_I'ef01f"£:, jtft1'is :<;j<:a1:11'3; has
rightiy re5t<::1'ed the bf.__ :1:;e«.:1~1a1 court fer the
1'easo::1s aiready assig1i;_e§ii_ its jucigment.

7. ~E}V’&:1,. i1: :’%s« éaken f6f””érgun1cnt Sake that the
revi.&1%%_,{}¥::*.?£iiii<:::fi(::§*=.Ijas§'};;;,;zrohas6d thee mukageiai rights

undcr a 14eg,'is't~:::fe?-_d Saifitlead, yet, the same wili not alter

* _ tt'4E§:":pG_'$§:io:1 ofV"tha::–'1-'éspmadant insofar as the 190336551011

:1? V §}3;€':3":.-'-,ft,_'3;it4.""p,_IV'c:";;j)(€I"1:,sr is COI}{3€IT.i€d and it is far '£116 review

'p'£ifE,itio:}<%:i* ?§.(;T:; take necessary steps as is opal] 110 it to

recov'erA'1.pessession fmna tha respoxacisnt and Inereiy

Eafiéésmse sf £113 iI1t(?.I'€S3; of tha £53301' and U16 telzant gets

I}:3@1"ged in one agtaé the same persen, that will next in any

way afibct the position: of the r€:sp0:1d<:11t hf3I"€:iI}. In

suppart Qf ai} the suwsions, the 1€a1'1"."i{id CO1};£1S€I Shri

, I

8
Sanathkumar S11ettj§,: placed I”€1i8.I1C€3 on the c1<:":v:::isins

reported in A132. 1960 Mysore 214 and LLR. 2006

Karnataka 3936.

8. in the fight. 0:? the above SI}bI:fiiSSi011§$.._§;i§C:£: :§1*1$:1

the decisions cited, the paint for c(11i’e:.iVG1c:fcaf:I<)!1T' -.is

whetluer a cast: is made out faf Mi;éiiit:*.§s"<.Qf -:1}-1§_£

rendered by this court _.cg"1

2{}?4/ 21396. 4

9. The scope of 1*r:§.éi¢w 1. 1 Of the

£’,.P.(ii, is «1iI:V*1i–ted_ tn maitl grounds via, (1) can the
g1″::;1md ‘cf -:_iist’:m§é::If};.- fjf. iiew and ixnportant matter or

eVj;§i6i2ae Whi’:.:A3:1,V after the exemisa cf due diligence, was

his knawiadge or cauld not be produced by

H 8;: « fiat: *’§i:£1e when the dacree was passed 9:’ order

maééc,’- 01*”{1’I) on acceunt cf same mistake car erroz’

apggagfizt on 1:133 face of the I”‘6C()I”d, 8}” (331) for any other

:$z,:fiicic:11t regsgn.

V’ ” As far as the f1I’Si gounci is concemed, the mssifiw

pt-stitionex’ has taken a spéaczific stand in the W’I’iti6I’1

.3»

V/

9

statammzt abmit ‘(ha plaixltiif having East the: case: in
seekifig <:x:cL1paI:cy rights from the L:.=m<:1 Tribunal. But,

the said £3.VE'.I"'II1(i§).t macie in the W'.{'.itt€I1 stat@mei_it.was

not carried to its logical and either by p1'

disposed of and even at llhtti 0f iiiaiiter being
listed for being spoi’i’v.vi’..”1é;’_&;j*.;;,**;”i§3r*»i’.:._, the question of

discovery of nrzw ancb subsfiquerit to

the civ:ispL9 ‘the occupancy rights issue is COI”1(.’:€I’}T1€3d.

As,”i’f”grV’ as the exercise czf due diligence is

cozicfixjicd, in the very affidavit that is filed

z’fi,C{iéIIlf}€iI1:$?iI}g the review petitir31’1, it is Stéitfid ‘that the

feview petitioner was uiider the beriafide ii::1p:*<3ssiI1

that the Giher side Weuicl §1F(}{Z11.1C€ the (iocumem: 12*iz., the

Qrdef passaci by the Land Tribunal. But, thifé it.s<_~":}.f

2*'

.1

19
indicates that the review pstitimaex’ was fully aware of

the dscument in questian but, he did not prodwjcg the

same. and, 011 the othéza’ hand, he slept: QV<:1?._ 1ji:» .§j1*:;iy 't.§;

wake up after '[116 disposal of the

The1'efo:'e, the qL1€:StiO}f1 of
diligence gmund dges not Vafisfi. V4 . . V' . V'

12. In this c011I1ecti0n, it _feié§éf§£ gégfeg ts) the
de<::is,:i11 of this ».v.§’$i”e;:Irf1inc1t’}z “Vs; Goviné
Rae, reportcd 1-,1 34, WIISIEEE,

daalhagiviéilfiij,L115:31}é}:;§1*::VSsioIi_'””‘é:»§era::ise of due diligence”
u:’1der -Ofdezf -4?’: Eihis cu.rt has obseznreci that

r1oI1;~§1:0c:11i’%:”¥’_’;_€3I:.V(3f t2f1e”‘iEc€:1ce by 1:113 jaeiitienezz’ Cazmat

. bc.._g{‘ gf€)L11′}(Zi to i’éV’ieW the case as 311716 review petitioner

€x’.s’_2:1$’ he was requixfid to _pr0r:iu<:e the iices-:'nce

i1i»._0rd¢:"f 'sucmed in his claim and 1:1 Vifiw of the

petitiéazléi' not stating the C'-i3"C1_1IflSt8J"£C€3S under which he

-.’1:35t_: sig}1t cf the €XiSt(f:1″§,C€ 0f the 1i(:a11<:& or of the steps

VA V. tee}: to S€8}C{3h for it 81191 preduce the sama, this

901.11%, thfirefom, held that the petifianer did I19? givs

$u§'fiCiui:r1t mason to SHOW that the licemte CO'Lfid 1101: be

}

An

Li

prcidueed either at the time of filing of the suit <31' at a
hater stage and even at the stage of Second Vappeal.

Therefere, {:11 these gmmds, this court

lack ef diligence and delay en the part ef

has disemtitled him to seek t;1eyré1:e£.at éijafidsci" the

court. Thie decision applies t.<5.__the iI1ste;;'1f'veasc: Vales.'

beczmlse, the petitioner say i1ie'.=afiid83.%it that.'

even with due difigehee, 11e"'ee-'gic1V–V'i1et lagfvvhaiids to the
documents new sought i:r"§_ be' »§')fr;11:, on the other

hand, his e::'p1.a;f§=afio§} iz1e1:£ca';te7s§'~ithe1:V:V.}E1e was fully aware

of «:ieez.1mer:!j 4' bei:'1wgz'i::1 'pessessien, but deepite that,
he dees"–:;1_0f"£ Vpfodigee' Waite fer the other side to

proqéfilice I:11e"_a1'1d, as aiready n1e11t:ioned, even

. {:im;i1:.g't1"ie 't:z);urse of the hearirxg of the entire second

'éeiT1f;:i'A'§::.Si:.113seque11t1y at the stage of the matter

beiilg, "ta;ke11 for being spoken to, the review petgitienel'

2 §:1id«.._net bring to the notice of the court as to this

i;'£0e:.1I:1e1'1L

' 3. As far as the eaee falling under any ether sufficient.

reason is ceneeined, 115 court has dispesed of the

12
S€C€)flC§ appeal on the basis 0f the a1’gt:ment,s advanczed

by the iea:r’I1ed CGLIIISEI far the parties and, at no jzjeint Gf

time, the grourzd relating to occuparicy

been rejected and the petitioner

mulageni rights under th<=:: S316' ._ dseti ~ . f;V:1f "'wé;s

mentioI1ed.. Tharefore, havilzg rfi-gard to iviéw

by this ceurt 'based on the i('§'€:.:;3}i::-":1:1¥:.:':oV1"1.*.~'~_ faiwarfi and

in the light. of the itiniy f§"Q1:1}L1(i,¥'i?'§T1.iCh seriousiy
£:01'1t¢:st.4i’ ih.é ‘i’.}¥:’.A€c’i.’, } 61″ 12%: View that 119 after
appafizjent; _ f’ace4..;:$fv…:i:e.’ record can be said ‘:9 have
C)CCL1ZE’3T’€(§ in tTf11=:”;ii;1cigiiK:Vt:4I1t that is 110:5: sszmglit to ba

rasrfigéived and svén in the very decisien referred to by the

.A i6,3I’11€3d S§3i1;iQ1′ counsel in the Case Gf Sfiagirathi Ammal

Cathczziilc Mission, rsperteci in A.I.i?E.

19, it has beer: Qbsexved by the Apex Ceurt

., “iixaiz; révicw is pemnissible onijg if the jud§11e:1t;’ srder is

“s;ii;i’.a1:ed by an apparsnt. armr car it is a palpable vvreng

V’ “aim if the e1:’r<::r is szzifievidezxt, than oniy the quastion cf

app£yi1'1g the principles as provided under {}f"Ci€},' 4'? Rule

}

'I

13
1 of the Ci.P.C:, Games 31111) picture. {:1 thtfi izistaxat. Cass,

E (ii) not See 3115:” 0f the £:’1.b{)V€ fa<:i:.0r$ being Inadegut 5}?

the: r€:v'iew pétititrmer.

14. Eva”: as regards the merits Gf .- {Ii’1€ “is

::m”1cer:1€d, the decisimi r€fe1*.::’&d-. in by t};i:: i:”:a{%.”I1″‘c:d ‘

cmmael fat’ the 1’€Sp{}I1d€I’}t; <:a$€: uf,V ¢§fGf7§a§pa

Kortctri Vs. {David Pintd}-..,4?:"i*::poI;ié€i__ 'iI:A1i":12£)O6

Iiainataka 3936, iay<s d9w:1"'L5.§f:'– fir-9p0siAf;i0r1 {sf Law that

'E:.1"1e right if 'the mxflagé-:§n;i€ia2*..€3zt" 51._1 b~1::13jiagenidar craimot

be e:::f;tiiigVL1i::ié:1ed"7'géxc_é:pf'in caste of Vialation 0f the
COI1difif)flS o:':n:1§§1gAé1?i4ra}at§11g ta paymamt of rent and if

ar.1};ib<_3dy 1fi:::1j¢i":a"$;e$"vfiié"right of muiagar, the 3mm: will

zs1_1¥3_j'Vc%(§%:""'C<§ the right if mtllagenitlar or sub

iz.:1iiag§:}ia:it:¥11t_ 1..'1'heref0r€:, I do not see any cass fl18.Cif: gut

f;i(:i't%L{i¥Z}I'i€T far this court to review £116 judgrztasizt;

passédfin 1&6.2{3{}8i11 R.S5A.§xE0. 2i)74/2006'

.H{)W€Vf:I*, in View of the; submiasion mafia by "Elm

' " 'iearmzd :1::’1$ei for the r*esp0:1d€11’t that the respsndénf;

has taken passession 95 the suit, pr013€r*£y and the said

,>’*

V. I

:4
stibniission being disputed by the leamasd 345311101′

counsei for the mview petitierzer, r10twithsta11di:1g the
Vi<3W taken by this court that the 1'evie;w ;:»<:t:i13;:i<:'2'1,3 "".£;1<:;€:s

not IIICTTJZ any Consideration, yet, the review p€,ti.:i<3;g1f:ij, if tr

able to establish that it has becoma Glf ,

' ,

suit scheduie pr0pe1"t;y, is at fi_Ii)<:*:}{f§y7
steps as is caper; it; it in .1315".

Thfi rczview petition staIid$’dis1?aiS’s<:d_.' I E

ckc/»