LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rahimal Bathu & Others vs. Ashiyal Beevi (2023 INSC 861)

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 861Decided 26 Sept 2023
Civil Appeal No. 6232 of 2023
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Manoj Misra · J.B. Pardiwala on the bench · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha in his place alongside Justice Manoj Misra

Background

The respondent sued for declaration of exclusive ownership (or, alternatively, a one-sixth share) of a property, alleging that a 1982 gift deed by her grandmother in favor of the appellants' predecessor was obtained by undue influence and was a nullity. The trial court held the gift deed invalid and a later 1990 sale deed in the respondent's favor valid, but paradoxically decreed only a one-sixth share to her instead of full ownership; her review application against this inconsistency was rejected by the trial court. Instead of filing an appeal against the decree, she filed a civil revision under Section 115 CPC against the rejection of her review, and the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed the revision and itself modified the decree to grant her full ownership, prompting the defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that although the word "case" in Section 115 CPC is broad enough to cover an order rejecting a review application, exercising revisional jurisdiction over such an order is discretionary, not automatic. Distinguishing its earlier three-judge ruling in Major S.S. Khanna (which concerned an interlocutory order with no appealable decree yet in existence), the Court held that once an appealable decree already exists and a review of that decree is rejected on merits, the proper remedy is to file a regular appeal against the decree itself, not a revision against the review rejection, because allowing revision would cause the trial court's decree to merge into the High Court's revisional order, unfairly stripping the other side of its normal right of appeal (including the right under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC to contest adverse findings). The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order, but clarified this does not bar the respondent from now filing a proper appeal against the trial court's decree, with any delay in doing so eligible for condonation given the time she spent pursuing the review.

Lesson Learnt

When a court rejects a review petition against a decree that itself could be appealed, a litigant should file a regular appeal against the original decree, not a revision petition against the review's rejection, since using the revision route to challenge an already-appealable decree can unfairly compromise the other party's appellate rights.

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