Shakuntala Sharma vs Jeteinder Sharma & Ors.

$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 6 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010377712024
+ W.P.(C) 8947/2024
SHAKUNTALA SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amarjeet Singh Sahni &
Ms. Sneha, Advs.
versus
JETEINDER SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with
Mr. Akash Mishra & Mr. Arnav
Mittal, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Tushar Sannu & Ms.
Shagun Bhadana, Advs. for R-3
& R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
REVIEW PET. 540/2026 ( for review of Judgment dt. 13.10.2026 ) &
CM APPL. 77981/2026 ( exemption ) in W.P.(C)8947/2024
(Disposed off case)
1. The present Review Petition has been filed seeking review of
the judgment dated 13.10.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
8947/2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed.
2. Succinctly stated, the Petitioner is the mother of Respondent
No.1 and mother-in-law of Respondent No.2. The dispute between the
parties concerns two residential properties, namely, Flat No. 58-B and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 8947/2024 Page 1 of 7

Flat No. 59-C, situated at C-4D, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is borne
from record that the Petitioner has been residing in Flat No. 58-B for
several years (claiming that her late husband was the erstwhile owner
of the flat) and also claims ownership over Flat No. 59-C , in which
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are residing.
3. Alleging ill-treatment, harassment, threats and failure to
maintain her, the Petitioner had approached the District Magistrate
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007, seeking eviction of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from Flat No.
59-C . The District Magistrate, by order dated 20.02.2024, directed
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to vacate the said property.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the said order before the
Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority. The appeal was
allowed by order dated 16.04.2024 and the eviction order was set
aside. The learned Appellate Authority, while doing so, observed that
the allegations of ill-treatment and non-maintenance were not
sufficiently substantiated and that the parties were already embroiled
in civil litigation concerning the properties. At the same time, with a
view to safeguarding the interests of the Petitioner, the learned
Appellate Authority permitted her to choose the flat in which she
wished to reside and contemplated an exchange of the two flats if she
chose to shift to Flat No. 59-C.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this
Court by way of W.P.(C) 8947/2024.
6. The principal contentions of the petitioner were that, being the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 8947/2024 Page 2 of 7

owner of Flat No. 59-C (though she is not residing therein) she was
entitled to seek eviction of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therefrom, that the
allegations of harassment and ill-treatment had not been properly
appreciated; and that the learned Appellate Authority had travelled
beyond the scope of the appeal in directing an arrangement concerning
the two flats. Reliance was also placed upon the order dated
13.12.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Suit directing the parties to
maintain status quo with respect to title and possession of the
properties.
7. This Court, after considering the rival submissions and the
material on record, dismissed the writ petition by judgment under
review dated 13.10.2026.
8. Now, the present Review Petition has been filed essentially
raising the same contentions on which observations have already been
given by this Court.
9. The principal contention raised is that Flat No. 59-C is
separately registered in the name of the Petitioner and, according to
her, does not form part of the properties involved in CS(OS)
786/2022. On this basis, it is urged that pursuing eviction proceedings
in respect of Flat No. 59-C could not amount to an attempt to alter the
status quo directed in the civil proceedings. It is further contended that
however, the learned Appellate Authority has travelled beyond the
scope of the appeal by introducing a conditional arrangement
concerning Flat No. 58-B , though the appeal before it arose from the
eviction order concerning Flat No. 59-C. The petitioner submits that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 8947/2024 Page 3 of 7

she had never consented to any exchange of the two properties and
that the learned Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to introduce
such an arrangement.
10. Per contra , the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that
no error apparent on the face of record has been demonstrated. This
Court has passed a reasoned judgment, and the present review petition
is liable to be dismissed as the same seeks re-appreciation of facts and
reconsideration of the same issues already examined which is
impermissible under review jurisdiction.
11. At the outset, it is well settled that the power of review is an
extremely limited jurisdiction. A review proceeding cannot be equated
with an appeal in disguise. The jurisdiction under Section 114 read
with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to correction of “an error
apparent on the face of the record” or other grounds specifically
recognized therein. Further an error apparent on the face of the record
must be an error which is self-evident and does not require a long-
drawn process of reasoning. An error which can be established only
after an elaborate examination of the material and where twoviews are
reasonably possible cannot ordinarily be characterised as an error
apparent on the face of the record. [Ref: Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury : (1995) 1 SCC 170]
12. Examined in the aforesaid light, the grounds disclosed in the
review petition do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the
record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 8947/2024 Page 4 of 7

13. This Court has already noted, in the judgment under review,
that proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act are intended to protect
the life and property of senior citizens and to enable them to live with
dignity and security, but also observed that such proceedings cannot
be treated as a substitute for adjudication of disputed questions of title
or as a means of resolving an otherwise pending civil dispute
concerning the rights of family members in immovable property. This
Court specifically noted the arguments that, the Respondent No. 1
claims rights in the Flat No. 58B (in which the petitioner was residing)
by way of a Will drawn by his father/Late Sh. Bhagirath Sharma,
while the Flat No. 59C (in which the Respondent No. 1 and 2 are
residing), are owned by the Petitioner. This Court further noted that
the parties were involved in proceedings in CS(OS) 786/2022
concerning the properties left behind by late Shri Bhagirath Sharma
and that the said proceedings involved, inter alia , disputes concerning
the ownership of the properties and the validity of the Will relied upon
by Respondent No.1. It was, in these circumstances, held that the
learned Appellate Authority was justified in taking note of the pending
civil proceedings and in declining to employ the proceedings under
the Senior Citizens Act for determination of questions which properly
fell for adjudication before the competent civil court.
14. The Court also considered the factual position that the parties
had admittedly been residing separately in the two flats with separate
kitchens since 2005 and that the petitioner had not placed sufficient
material to substantiate the allegations of ill-treatment or harassment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 8947/2024 Page 5 of 7

The Court further noted the contentions relating to the rental income
received by the Petitioner and the fact that Respondent No.1 was
stated to be looking after the expenses of the Petitioner's younger son
and his family. In the aforesaid factual context, it was held that no
case for eviction of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had been made out.
15. With regard to the arrangement directed by the learned
Appellate Authority, this Court specifically considered the Petitioner's
reliance on the status-quo order dated 13.12.2022. Considering the
totality of circumstances, this Court, had clearly observed that the if
the petitioner seeks to rely upon the status quo order, she can always
choose to not alter the possession status of any property and continue
to reside in Flat No. 58B, as only an option has been proposed by the
learned Appellate Authority, keeping in mind the existing civil
disputes between the parties. It was further expressly clarified that all
questions concerning title, possession, validity of the Will and the
respective rights and claims of the parties were to be examined in the
appropriate civil proceedings and that nothing stated in the judgment
was to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of those
claims.
16. Ultimately, this Court held that the jurisdiction under Article
226 did not permit the Court to substitute its own assessment for that
of the Appellate Authority merely because a different conclusion
could conceivably have been reached.
17. Thus, evidently, the question as to the nature of the rights
claimed by the parties in respect of the two properties, the effect of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 8947/2024 Page 6 of 7

pending civil proceedings and the relevance of the status-quo order
were all matters and issues which were before the Court and were
considered while deciding the writ petition.
18. The petitioner may disagree with the conclusions ultimately
reached by this Court; however, such disagreement does not constitute
an error apparent on the face of the record. The contention that a
different conclusion ought to have been reached on the basis of the
documents relating to the properties or the pending civil proceedings
would, at the highest, constitute a ground for appeal, if otherwise
available in law. The same however does not warrant exercise of the
limited jurisdiction of review.
19. No ground contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for
review of the judgment dated 13.10.2026 is made out.
20. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:24:22
W.P.(C) 8947/2024 Page 7 of 7