LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Asharfi Devi (D) Thr. LRs. v. State of U.P. Through Collector/District Magistrate

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 124Decided 1 Feb 2019
Civil Appeal No. 5217 of 2010
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre · Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Background

The appellant's predecessor owned land that was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the State claimed to have taken possession of it in 1982. After the Ceiling Act was repealed in Uttar Pradesh in 1999, the original owner filed a writ petition arguing that since she remained in possession of the land even after repeal, the ceiling proceedings against her had lapsed. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition in 2008, and a subsequent review application against that dismissal was also rejected by the High Court in December 2008. The legal heirs then appealed to the Supreme Court, but only against the review order, not the original dismissal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that because the appeal was directed only against the order rejecting the review application (and not the original order), its scrutiny was confined to whether that original order suffered from an "error apparent on the face of the record" under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the narrow standard for review, not whether the original decision was correct on merits. The Court found the appellants were effectively trying to re-argue the entire original case as if it were a regular appeal, which is impermissible in a review-arising appeal. Since the High Court had already found that the original owner failed to prove continued possession on the date of repeal, and no apparent error was shown, the Supreme Court concluded the review was rightly rejected and upheld it.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition is not a second chance to re-argue a case on its merits: it is a very narrow remedy limited to correcting an error that is obvious on the face of the record; if you want to challenge the original order itself, you must appeal that order directly, not just the later rejection of your review application.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case