Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Gopal Sharma S/O Shri Govind Ram Sharma vs Ram Prasad S/O Late Shri Moti on 24 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:28647]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 174/2013
CNR: RJHC020414202013 | URN: WRW / 306U / 2013
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17175/2013
1 Gopal Sharma S/o Shri Govind Ram Sharma, Aged About
51 Years, Resident Of Village Chainpura (Jawahar Circle)
Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2 Gadiya And Girdhari S/o Shri Bheru @ Bhorya, Resident
Of Village Chainpura (Jawahar Circle) Tehsil Sanganer,
Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1 Ram Prasad S/o Late Shri Moti, Resident Of Village
Gatore, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2 Rameshwar S/o Late Shri Gopi, Resident Of Village
Gatore, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)(Since
Deceased After Decree).
3 Kishore @ Ram Kishore S/o Late Shri Gopi, Resident Of
Village Gatore, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
(Rajasthan).
4 Lalaya S/o Late Shri Gopi, Resident Of Village Gatore,
Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
5 Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Office At
Dhamani Market, Choura Rasta, Jaipur Registration No.
1577-L, At Present Liquidator Through Dy. Registrar, Co-
Operative, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park,
Jaipur.
6 Smt. Gunmala Chordia W/o Late Shri Nemi Chand
Choradia, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Mahip
Choradia R/o House No. 2326, Choradia Bhawan, Shesha
Walo Ki Gali, Ramlala Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
7 Smt. Sushma Bhandari W/o Shri Rajesh Bhandari D/o
Late Shri Nemi Chand Chordia, Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Mahip Choradia R/o House No. 2326,
Choradia Bhawan, Shesha Walo Ki Gali, Ramlala Ji Ka
Rasta, Johari Bazar , Jaipur.
8 Mahip Choradia S/o Late Shri Nemi Chandji, R/o House
No. 2326, Choradia Bhawan, Shesha Walo Ki Gali,
Ramlala Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
9 Sampat Devi Sharma W/o Late Shri Vijay Lal Sharma, R/o
Plot No. 63, Rfc Colony, Opposite Mojak Hotel, Sirsi Road,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
10 Sajjan Singh Karnawat S/o Late Shri Dhanpat Singh Ji
Karnawat, R/o Plot No. A-689, Shiv Marg, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
11 Gautam Chand Barmecha S/o Late Shri Deep Chand Ji
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (2 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
Barmecha, Resident Of E-12-A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri,
Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Now Deceased)
11.1 Smt. Kanta Barmecha W/o Shri Gautam Chand
Barmecha, R/o E-12-A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
11.2 Saurabh Kumar Barmecha S/o Shri Gautam Chand
Barmecha., R/o E-12-A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
11.3 Sumit Kumar Barmecha S/o Shri Gautam Chand
Barmecha, R/o E-12-A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri, Adarsh
Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
11.4 Smt. Sapna Mehta D/o Shri Gautam Chand Barmecha, R/
o E-12-A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
11.5 Vandana Setha D/o Gautam Chand Barmecha., R/o E-12-
A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
11.6 Meena Jain D/o Shri Gautam Chand Barmecha, R/o E-12-
A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
11.7 Smt. Sunena Patel D/o Shri Gautam Chand Barmecha., R/
o E-12-A, Kalyan Villa, Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
12 Padam Chand Chordia S/o Late Shri Kundan Mal Chordia,
Resident Of Plot No. 502, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
13 Sunita Sethi D/o Tara Chand Chokdayat, Through Power
Of Attorney Rajesh Kumar Chokdayat, Resident Of House
No. 3977, Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar,
Jaipur.
14 Aasha Sethi D/o Late Shri Tara Chand Chokdayat,
Through Power Of Attorney Rajesh Kumar Chokdayat,
Resident Of House No. 3977, Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka
Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
15 Alka Jain D/o Late Tara Chand Chokdayat, Through Power
Of Attorney Rajesh Kumar Chokdayat, Resident Of House
No. 3977, Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar,
Jaipur.
16 Rajesh Kumar Chokdayat S/o Late Tara Chand Chokdayat,
Resident Of House No. 3977, Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka
Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
17 Additional District And Session Judge No. 17, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (3 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma
Mr. Prem Shankar Sharma
Ms. Anzum Parveen
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
24/07/2026
1. Instant review application (for short, application’) has been
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with aid of
Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, seeking to
review/recall the final order dated 20.09.2013, whereby and
whereunder S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17175/2013, filed by
applicants/writ petitioners was dismissed on merits.
2. Heard counsel for the applicants/writ petitioners at length
and carefully perused the record.
3. As per office report, notices of this application have been
served upon the respondents and earlier one Advocate Mr.
Shameem Kureshi put in appearance for and on behalf of
respondents No.11.1 to 11.7, but thereafter, he stopped to put in
appearance and thereafter no one appeared on behalf of
respondents at the time of hearing of this application.
4. Before delving into the issue of recall/review of the final
order dated 20.09.2013, it is necessary to recapitulate the factual
matrix of the case in brief as under:
4.1 Applicant No.2 instituted a Civil Suit No.119/2003 seeking to
declare the sale deed dated 28.03.1971 as null and void to the
extent of his 1/2 share in the suit property stating inter alia that
this sale deed was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of
defendant No.5 (non-applicant No.1 to 5 herein) in respect of their
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (4 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]shares and at that relevant point of time, he was a minor of age 4
years, however, his 1/2 share was also sold by the said sale deed.
In the suit, non-applicant Nos.1 to 5 were impleaded as defendant
Nos. 1 to 5. This suit came to be decreed vide ex-parte judgment
dated 25.04.2005 and the sale deed dated 28.03.1971 through
which respondent No.5 viz. Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti
Ltd. purchased the entire land including 1/2 share of applicant,
was declared null and void qua plaintiff applicant No.2.
4.2 Defendant No.5-Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, praying to set
aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which came to be
allowed vide order dated 10.01.2007 and the judgment and
decree dated 25.04.2005 was set aside. Consequently, Civil Suit
No.119/2003 has revived for a fresh trial.
4.3 Thereafter, it appears that non-applicant Nos. 6 to 17, jointly
moved an application seeking their impleadment in the present
suit on the ground that defendant No.5-Jaipur Bhawan Nirman
Sahakari Samiti Ltd., after purchase of the land in question
through sale deed dated 28.03.1971 has developed a residential
scheme under the name of ‘Vardhman Nagar, Jaipur’, wherein they
have purchased/allotted plots and are in possession thereof. Their
application came to be allowed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur vide order
dated 05.09.2013 whereagainst applicants filed S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.17175/2013 invoking jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4.4 The writ petition filed by applicants was heard and dismissed
on merits by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2013,
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (5 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
whereagainst instant application seeking to review/recall of final
order dated 20.09.2013 has been filed.
5. Submission of counsel for the applicants is that on behalf of
non-applicants Nos. 6 to 17, who alleged themselves to be allottee
members in the scheme developed by the non-applicant No.5 viz.
Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Society, step in the
shoes of non-applicant No. 5 and since the Samiti itself has been
impleaded as defendant No.5 in the suit and is contesting the suit
to defend its sale deed dated 28.03.1971, therefore, non-applicant
Nos. 6 to 17 could not have been impleaded as party defendants
in the present suit. His submission is that learned trial Court
committed a manifest error in allowing their impleadment vide
order dated 05.09.2013 and the Hon’ble High Court vide order
dated 20.09.2013, without adverting to the delay in filing
application, dismissed the applicants’ writ petition and thereby
affirmed the order.
6. Further submission of counsel for the applicants is in respect
of few subsequent developments, stated to be occurred in the
present proceedings, that non-applicant/defendant No.5-Jaipur
Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. has come under liquidation
and over the management of Samiti, liquidator has also been
appointed. Thereafter, the allotment of plots in the Scheme of
‘Vardhman Nagar, Jaipur’, made in favour of applicant Nos.6 to 17
has been cancelled by the Administrator/Liquidator, therefore, on
the strength of such subsequent facts, submission of counsel for
the applicants is that non-applicants No.6 to 17 have lost their so
called rights/interest in the suit property and their impleadment,
on that count as well stands unwarranted, therefore, the final
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (6 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
order dated 20.09.2013 may be reviewed/recalled to hear the writ
petition afresh on merits.
7. In addition to above, learned counsel for the applicants have
also raised an objection regarding filing of the application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the non-applicant Nos.6 to 17 with delay
and have also pointed out that their first application was dismissed
in default vide order dated 01.05.2013 and then restoration
application was filed, which was withdrawn on 29.07.2013, but
thereafter, second application was filed on 29.07.2013, which has
been allowed.
8. Having pondered over the submissions made by counsel for
the applicants at length and after appreciating the factual matrix
obtaining in the case at hand so also having perused the final
order dated 20.09.2013, sought to be reviewed, this Court finds
that concededly, applicant’s No.2 Civil Suit was decreed ex-parte
vide judgment dated 25.04.2005 and thereby the registered sale
deed in question dated 28.03.1971, executed in favour of non-
applicant No.5-viz. Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd.
was declared null and void but later on, ex parte decree has been
set aside vide order dated 10.01.2007 and the applicants’ Civil
Suit No. 119/2003, seeking to declare the sale deed dated
28.03.1971 as null and void, stands revived before the Civil Court
qua non-applicant No.5-Jaipur Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti
Ltd. for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, when the suit was/is at
initial stage of recording evidence of applicants/plaintiffs at that
stage, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by non-applicant
Nos. 6 to 17 came to be filed which has been allowed by the trial
Court vide order dated 05.09.2013 and thereby have been allowed
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (7 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
to be impleaded as party defendant in the present suit. A perusal
of order dated 05.09.2013 reveals that trial Court assigned
reasons for allowing impleadment of non-applicant Nos.6 to 17 in
the present suit and a speaking and reasoned order was passed.
9. It was observed by the trial Court in the order dated
05.09.2013 that since the non-applicants are allottees in the
scheme developed by the non applicant no.5- Jaipur Bhawan
Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and are in possession of their
respective plots, obviously they would be affected by the final
outcome of judgment, if the sale deed of non-applicant No.5 is
declared null and void behind their back and therefore, applicants
were considered as proper parties and an opportunity of hearing
was accorded to the applicants by allowing their impleadment in
the present Civil Suit.
10. Applicants/writ petitioners challenged the order dated
05.09.2013 by way of filing SBCWP No. 17175/2013, invoking the
jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. In the writ petition, applicants raised all the points, as has
been raised on their behalf in this review application. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with each and every
argument and thereafter, dismissed the writ petition on merits
vide order dated 20.09.2013. The subsequent facts, noted
hereinabove were also raised and considered by the High Court in
the order dated 20.09.2013.
11. This Court finds that the arguments which have been put-
forth by and on behalf of applicants/writ petitioners are one and
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (8 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
the same arguments which were made while arguing the writ
petition itself and all points were dealt with on merits and rejected
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, while dismissing the writ
petition vide order dated 20.09.2013. The order dated 20.09.2013
is a detailed and reasoned order. This Court finds that on this
count, the order dated 20.09.2013 does not suffer from any error
apparent on the face of record or from non-consideration of any
point raised by applicants in the review application.
12. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 20.09.2013 was
passed, after hearing counsel for the applicants/review petitioners,
hence, same does not suffer with violation of principles of natural
justice. In that view, prayer for recalling is misconceived.
13. In respect of seeking review of order passed on merits, in
civil cases, it is well settled proposition of law that a re-hearing of
the matter is impermissible in law within the scope of review and
further, review is not an appeal in disguise nor it is an opportunity
to the review applicant for re-hearing of the matter already
adjudicated.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lily Thomas & Ors.
V. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, while
dealing with scope of review in civil case, held and observed in
para No.56 as under :-
“56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review
can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not
to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised
within the limits of the statute dealing with the
exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like
an appeal in disguise.”
(emphasis supplied)
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (9 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
15. In case of Rajendra Kumar V. Rambai reported in (2007)
15 SCC 513, Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope of exercise of
powers of review, held in para no. 6 as under:
“6. The limitations on exercise of the power of
review are well settled. The first and foremost
requirement of entertaining a review petition is that
the order, review of which is sought, suffers from
any error apparent on the face of the order and
permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of
justice. In the absence of any such error, finality
attached to the judgment/order cannot be
disturbed.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. Following the above ratio decidendi, in case of Inderchand
Jain vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs. reported in (2009) 14 SCC
663, Hon’ble Supreme Court re-considered the scope of review
and held that the review court does not sit like an appellate Court
for its own order. It was also held that the inherent jurisdiction
may not be invoked for reviewing the order passed on merits and
to substitute the previous view of the Court.
17. On the issue of ”any error apparent on the face of record”
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2020) 2
SCC 338, held and observed that while exercising the scope of
review, a long drawn process of reasoning is not required to be
followed to find any error apparent on the face of record. For
ready reference Para no.72 is being reproduced as under:
“72. Undoubtedly, any error to be an error on the face of
the record, cannot be one which has to be established by
a long drawn out process of reasoning on points where
there may conceivably be two opinions or if the error
requires lengthy and complicated arguments to establish(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (10 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]it, a writ of certiorari would not lie. This principle is
equally applicable to a review petition also.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is true that scope of review under Section 47 CPC is not
confined to finding ”any error apparent on the face of record” in
the order impugned, rather review of order is permissible “for any
other sufficient reason” as well but this Court does not find any
good reason to review the order dated 20.09.2013.
19. It is noteworthy here in the final order dated 20.09.2013, the
High Court while not interfering in the order of trial Court, allowing
impleadment of non-applicant Nos.6 to 17 within the scope of
Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, has observed that as per subsequent
facts, Samiti has gone in liquidation and the interest of Samiti
would be represented by the Liquidator, therefore, obviously
Samiti is a separate entity and it would not and could not
represent the interest of plot holders. In respect of cancellation of
allotment of applicants/plot holders, it was observed that this
issue can not be accepted at the initial stage of considering the
point of impleadment of plot holders, rather can be gone into
during trial, if plaintiffs are able to establish the fact that allotment
of plots made in favour of non-applicants/respondents Nos. 6 to
17 had been cancelled.
n20. It is well settled that although plaintiff is master of his civil
suit and has discretion against whom plaintiff wants to fight &
seek relief, yet by virtue of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, Court has
power to add any person(s) party to the suit, whose presence
before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (11 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit. The trial Court in the order dated
05.09.2013 has clearly observed that since applicants claim their
title & interest in the plot allotted to them in the scheme of Samiti,
hence, they would certainly affected, if the sale deed in favour of
Samiti is declared null and void and if applicants are deprived from
their plot, without getting an opportunity of hearing, same would
lead multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, non-applicant Nos. 6 to
17 were held at least proper party to be heard. The trial Court also
pondered over the issue of delay, in filing application by
applicants. Thus, each and every point sought to be raised by
review petitioners, have already been considered on merits.
21. Counsel for review petitioners made an endeavor to submit
that by allowing impleadment of non-applicant Nos. 6 to 17, other
plot holders in the scheme may also come forward for
impleadment in the present suit, but this arguments is required to
be considered at the time of impleadment of necessary and proper
party nor is sufficient reason to review the order impugned.
22. Having enlightened with the proposition of law as expounded
by Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again in the judgments cited
hereinabove and taking into consideration the fundamental issue,
sought to be reviewed by applicant, which is confined to
challenging the order of trial Court, in the writ petition, allowing
impleadment of non-applicants no.6 to 17 in the civil suit and
having gone through the order dated 05.09.2013 passed by the
trial Court on merits and order dated 20.09.2013 passed by High
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (12 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]
Court on merits within the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, this Court finds that filing of this review application by
writ petitioner, for seeking review of the final order dated
20.09.2013, dismissing the writ petition of petitioners on merits,
is nothing but sheer misuse of the process of law. The application
filed by applicants/writ petitioners is absolutely beyond the scope
of review/recall and no ground whatsoever exists at all to
review/recall the final order dated 20.09.2013 which was passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court on merits. Indeed,
applicants/writ petitioners have made an attempt, by means of
filing instant review petition, for rehearing of their writ petition on
merits, that too once the writ petition has already been heard by
the Coordinate Bench of this High Court and has been dismissed
on merits, therefore, such an endeavor of applicants/writ
petitioners may not be appreciated. This attempt of applicants
appears to be filled with unfairness and obviously has been made
with some ulterior motive, which deserves to be deprecated. In
order to discourage such an attempt and to prevent misuse of
process of law, a token amount of cost may be imposed upon the
review petitioners.
23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pandurang Vithal Kevne
v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr. reported in 2024
Supreme(SC) 1336, while dealing with the issue of filing
vexatious and frivolous review petition by the litigants to re-open
the decided issues, held and observed that such litigants must be
burdened with heavy cost to deter such practices in future. It
would be apropos to reproduce para no. 22 as hereunder -:
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:28647] (13 of 13) [WRW-174/2013]“22. Considering that precious time of this Court and the
High Court was wasted by the petitioner, in our opinion
the petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy cost,
to give clear message to the unscrupulous litigants like
the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial
System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the
stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to
others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has
wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of
other litigants who are waiting for justice. In fact these
types of litigants are choking the system of the court,
which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases. It
is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb
such type of litigation so that more time is available for
dealing with genuine litigation.”
24. As a result, the review application is hereby dismissed and in
order to deter such practice of the litigants to misuse the
jurisdiction of High Court in the guise of filing an absurd
application of review/recall and then keeping the matter pending
for years together, this Court deems it just and proper to impose a
token cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) upon the
applicants. The cost be deposited with the Litigants Welfare Fund
by way of Demand Draft/Banker’s Cheque in the name of Registrar
General LWFA, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur within a period
of four weeks.
25. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Pcg/46
(Uploaded on 29/07/2026 at 03:02:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/07/2026 at 09:49:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
