Review Jurisdiction Cannot Breach Civil Limitation Bar for Implementing Final Judicial Orders and Rescinding Concluded Transfers

The petitioner, a partnership firm, purchased property from the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) via a registered conditional sale deed.

Subsequently, a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court (on 02.08.2014) ordered the cancellation of the allotment, a decision later affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to these judicial orders, KHB cancelled the sale deed and resumed the property in 2020.

The petitioner challenged this cancellation in W.P. No. 24903/2022, which was dismissed on 26.02.2026. The petitioner filed this review petition seeking a reconsideration of that dismissal, contending that the sale deed could not be unilaterally cancelled and that the action was barred by limitation.

1. Whether the unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed by a statutory body is permissible after title has vested in the purchaser

2. Whether a concluded transfer in favor of a bona fide purchaser can be rescinded in the absence of fraud or overriding public interest

3. Whether the action to cancel the instrument was barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, which limit review jurisdiction to "errors apparent on the face of the record"

A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corp. Ltd. v. S.N. Raj Kumar, which prohibits unilateral cancellation of concluded sale deeds

ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which protects blameless transferees in concluded contracts unless public interest is prejudiced

Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which governs the timeframe for instituting suits to cancel instruments

The Court held that review jurisdiction is not an "appeal in disguise" and cannot be used to re-argue merits or seek a different view on existing material

Regarding the first and second issues, the Court distinguished the cited precedents (S.N. Raj Kumar and ITC Limited), noting that KHB’s cancellation was not a "unilateral administrative act" but a mandatory implementation of a binding judicial order that had attained finality through the Supreme Court

Equitable protections for bona fide purchasers could not override a final court decree

On the third issue, the Court ruled that Article 59 of the Limitation Act applies to the institution of suits, not to the execution of judicial directions. To hold otherwise would allow the law of limitation to frustrate final judicial pronouncements

The Court dismissed the review petition.