JUDGMENT
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.
1. District Judge, Srinagar passed an order on 29.2.2002 holding petitioners before District Judge and respondents before this Court entitled to the possession and to inmedacy of right of possession of residential/commercial building situated at Hari Singh High Street except the shop used to conduct business of ‘M/s Metal Mart’. With regard to other properties the District Judge held that the party has no claim to actual possession on merit and left same for determination in regular suit. The proceedings have been taken and the order passed under J&K Succession (Property Protection) Act 1977. Against this order revision was filed in this Court. By a detailed order of January 9, 2002 revision petition was dismissed as not merited after the above order of the District Judge was found within para-meters of law and jurisdiction and as one covered by the prescribed statutory procedure.
Against this order the review petitioner filed SLP (875/02). The Supreme Court vide its order dated February 4, 2002 dismissed the SLP by following order:-
“We do not find it a fit case for interference. The Special leave petition is dismissed.”
2. The petitioner respondent to the main proceedings before District Judge did not stop their and he has filed this review petition. The review petition against the above order of January 9, 2002 of this Court is moved to allege that the order suffers from mistake and error apparent on the face of the record. Tamleek-namah’ and subsequent ‘sale deed’, referred in the order of District Judge as also this Court in revision is stated not to affect the title and nature of possession of the review petitioner and by placing contra interpretation on these documents by the courts, an error is committed. The other ground taken is that the finding and observation of this Court that pendency of the suit before the courts below and issuance of interim injunction by the Subcourts cannot bar the jurisdiction of the District Court to proceed with the matter under Succession (Property Protection) Act, is “grossly misconceived.”‘ As the case is decided on mis-appreciation of facts touching jurisdiction, it has lead to failure of justice and by the observation of the High Court that it would not examine the issue beyond para-meters set for revision, error has crept in to be reveiwed in review proceedings. The other aspects of the lis like pendency of suits interse parties before Subordinate courts, the litigation between the Bank and the parties and respondents having filed a suit for partition, possession, and injunction, have not been considered, thereby an error is committed which is apparent on the face of the record.
3. The counsel are heard and record perused.
4. It would be seen that the grounds taken in the revision touch and embrace the merits of the matter and do not answer description of errors or mistake apparent on record so as to attract review proceedings. What the petitioner is trying to do is to re-agitate and re-open his case on all aspects when the case so far as proceedings under Succession (Property Protection) Act 1977 are concerned stand finally disposed of and the litigation in that regard and to that extent has attained finality with the dismissal of the revision by the High Court and dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court.
5. The submission based on Tamleek-namah and subsequent sale deed and issues connected thereto have been dealt with in detail by the District Judge and also taken care of at length by this Court in revision. There is no error or mistake apparent on record in coming to the conclusion that petitioners to the main proceedings before District Judge as heirs of the deceased father are entitled to the possession and have an immediate right to the possession of the item of the property at Hari Singh High Street. The settlement of actual possession by the order of the court is within powers and jurisdiction in the mode and manner prescribed by law. Establishment of immediate right to possess this property by the respondents to the review petition is found to be based on merit and within para-meters of law. Settling of the actual possession of the item of property is ordered without creating any impediment for the regular suit.
6. The Pendency of the civil suit(s) is taken note of in the judgment and even the effect of pendency of such suit under Succession (Property Protection) Act has been also considered and the court has come to the conclusion that merely because remedy of civil suit is provided and civil suit is pending, the party is not prevented to take re-course to provisions of Succession Act, as the part subject matter fall within the sweep of the Act. Issuance of an interlocatory order by some Munsiff court and its effect too is taken note of. The District Judge has dealt with the matter. In the over all facts and circumstances of this case, this Court observed, that the conclusions arrived at by the District Judge on facts and law, do not involve any question of jurisdiction and it is not a case of failure of justice, therefore, the order is not vitiated. These grounds have been again taken in review petition. An impression is gatherable that an attempt is being made to put in whatever is handy to push the case within the para-meters of review jurisdiction of this Court. The matter in revision has been dealt with in full within four corners of the law and there is nothing on record to reveal any error or mistake apparent on record on that count.
7. All said and done, it is seen that this review petition appears more an appeal/ 2nd revision against the order dated 9.1. 2002 passed in exercise of civil revisional jurisdiction. No error or mistake is discernable on record. I see no reason to depart from the judgment and the order passed in the revision sought to be reviewed, in as much as, no basic flaw is shown or pointed out in the order. It appears that the whole attempt to move the review petition, is to delay and prolong the matter as far as can be and to stall the settling of the possession of the item of the property on ground level otherwise given the legal contours of review jurisdiction one does not visualize how would a review lie when neither any mistake nor any error is apparent on record and when even Supreme court has not found it fit case for interference in SLP jurisdiction.
8. Gh. Abass and Ors. v. Mulla Abdul Kadar, (1970 (3) SCC 643) cited has no application to this case. In this case one of the Ld. Single Judge of M.P. High Court refused to entertain the review and against the order a Division Bench entertained the review and the Supreme court found that the review petition was competent, in as much as, the Ld. Single Judge had failed to consider provisions of law embodied in a circular which had the effect of amending the law of limitation so as to bring the respondents suit within time.
9. Avtar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2041 also cited by the petitioner’s counsel, has no application on facts to this case while rejecting the review petition, the Supreme court noted that a review is not a routine procedure and it is only when material error is manifest in the order or results in miscarrage of justice that the review can be ordered. The court quoted from earlier decision Chanderkanta v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500.
10. The authority State Bank of Travancore, Tirpur Branch v. K. Vinayachandran and Anr., AIR 1989 Kerala 302 is also cited. In this authority it is provided that even in review of judgment the court is bound to take notice of bringing into force a provision of law by statutory notification even after the mistake of omitting to take notice of such enforcement of statutory provisions is in the judgment. Obviously this is not the case here and case law has no application to this case.
11. Section 18 of the Succession (Property Protection) Act 1977 (1920 A.D.) read as under:-
“18. Effect of decision of summary suit. — The decision of the judge upon the summary suit under this Act shall have no other effect than that of settling the actual possession; but for this prupose it shall be final, not subject to any appeal or order for review.”
12. The judgment/order of which review is sought settles the actual possession of item of the property as provided in the order situated at Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar leaving the other items to be dealt in the regular suit. In Such circumstances the express bar of the order not being amenable inter-alia to review jurisdiction is attracted. Even on this count review cannot lie.
13. In the above view of the matter, the review petition is misconceived and not merited. Dismissed.
14. Inform court below of this order and send back the record.
