http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

                                   NON -REPORTABLE

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5195 OF 2001

T.Thimmaiah                                ......Appellant

                        Vs.

Venkatachala Raju                        .......Respondent

                       JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.   In this appeal, the appellant challenges an order made in

    review whereby the first appeal, which had earlier been

    allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court,

    has now been dismissed. This matter arises out of the

    following facts:

2.   The appellant herein, vide sale deed dated              27th

    December 1971, purchased a property bearing site No.6

    in 3rd block, Muneshwara Block, Palace Guttahalli,

    Bangalore-3, and as per Schedule "A" and "B" with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

                             2

    plaint the property was identified by specific boundaries

    as well. On 26th October 1993 the appellant herein filed

    a suit for declaration and possession of the Schedule ‘B’

    property which was in possession of the defendant

    respondent.   The suit was contested by the defendant-

    respondent. The trial court however decreed the suit on

    22nd   January   1991.       The   defendant-respondent

    thereupon filed a first appeal in the High Court of

    Karnataka and the said appeal was dismissed by the

    learned Single Judge on 16th February 1999.          The

    respondent thereafter filed a review petition on 14th

    November 1999.     A notice was issued to the present

    appellant in the review application and objections were

    filed thereto as well. The learned Single Judge, however,

    vide order dated 26th February 2001, allowed the appeal

    by reviewing his earlier order and dismissed the suit. It

    is in this circumstance that the present appeal is before

    us.

3.   During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the

    appellant has pointed out that a bare perusal of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

                             3

    order in review would reveal that it is based on a

    complete reappreciation of the matter on facts and the

    provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

    Procedure which would govern an application for review,

    have been completely ignored. It has been submitted by

    the counsel that the Single Judge had, in the first

    judgment, examined the facts and dismissed the appeal

    and on a reconsideration of the same facts, had allowed

    the same, which was not justified. We find merit in this

    plea. From a bare perusal of the judgment in review, it is

    clear that the principles laid down under Order 47 Rule 1

    of   the   CPC   have   been   completely      ignored.          We

    accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order in

    review dated 26th February 2001 and dismiss the appeal

    in the suit. We, however, give liberty to the respondent

    herein to challenge the judgment dated 16th February

    1999, if so advised.

4.   There will, however, be no order as to costs.

                                    ................................. J.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                    4

                        (TARUN CHATTERJEE)

                         .................................J.                          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI) New Delhi Dated: May 9, 2008