Review is warranted where an erroneous finding of no signed agreement underpins the judgment.

The disputes concerned Flat No. 126, Maitri Apartments, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi.

Sanjay Dubey claimed that negotiations for sale of the property commenced in 2007 for ₹19,50,000, that possession was delivered pursuant to the proposed sale, and that he paid approximately ₹16,65,000 towards the consideration.

He relied upon two alleged Agreements to Sell dated 12 September 2008 and 24 October 2008, together with receipts and correspondence.

Nandlal disputed the Agreements to Sell and claimed that Ramesh Chandra Dubey, Sanjay’s father, had been inducted as a tenant in 2007 at a monthly rent of ₹9,000.

Nandlal subsequently instituted a suit for possession, recovery of rent, mesne profits and injunction, while Sanjay filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged Agreement to Sell.

The Trial Court decreed Nandlal’s possession suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 20 May 2023 and dismissed Sanjay’s specific-performance suit on 31 May 2023, principally relying upon the findings in the possession proceedings.

The High Court dismissed the connected RFAs by a common judgment dated 10 June 2026 and affirmed the Trial Court’s decisions.

Sanjay and the legal representatives of Ramesh Chandra Dubey sought review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

They contended, inter alia, that the appellate judgment had wrongly recorded that the Agreements to Sell were unsigned and had therefore proceeded on an erroneous factual foundation.

On examining the record, the Court found that both Agreements dated 12 September 2008 and 24 October 2008 bore the signatures of the parties.

Whether the common judgment dated 10 June 2026 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record because it proceeded on the factual premise that there was no signed Agreement to Sell between the parties?

Whether the alleged errors concerning the tenancy, execution and genuineness of the Agreements to Sell, payments, readiness and willingness, and applicability of Order XII Rule 6 CPC required review of the appellate judgment?

Whether the review petitions could be allowed without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the rival claims?

The Court applied Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which a judgment may be reviewed where there is, inter alia, an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court treated a material factual mistake forming the foundation of the judgment as capable of correction in review, particularly where the mistake was demonstrable from the record itself.

The underlying proceedings had involved Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which permits judgment on clear, unequivocal and unconditional admissions; the petitioners argued that disputed questions regarding tenancy and the Agreements to Sell could not be decided on admissions alone.

The petitioners also relied upon Sections 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the law relating to specific performance and unregistered Agreements to Sell.

However, the Court’s operative decision rested on the review jurisdiction and the patent factual error regarding the existence of signed Agreements to Sell, rather than on a final adjudication of those substantive issues.

The Court found that the reasoning of the impugned appellate judgment was built on the assumption that the Agreements to Sell dated 12 September 2008 and 24 October 2008 were not signed by the parties.

On verification of the record, however, both documents contained the signatures of the parties, and the first Agreement also bore the signature of a witness.

The Court held that this was not merely a matter of interpretation or appreciation of evidence; it was a factual error apparent from the record that had materially influenced the dismissal of both RFAs.

The erroneous premise permeated the reasoning that there was no written or signed Agreement to Sell.

In view of that foundational error, the Court considered review to be warranted.

It did not finally determine whether the Agreements were genuine or enforceable, whether the parties stood in a landlord–tenant relationship, or whether the suits could properly be decided under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

Those matters were expressly left open for determination on merits.

Both Review Petitions were accordingly allowed, and the common judgment in RFA Nos. 11/2024 and 482/2023 was set aside.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to adjudication of the review petitions and did not express any view on the merits of the parties’ rival claims.

The matters were directed to be listed for arguments on 27 August 2026.