Review jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent apparent error.

Respondent No. 4, Smt. Manju Bala @ Manjula Chordiya, allegedly executed an agreement to sell dated 17 April 2009 concerning agricultural land bearing Survey No. 162/4, Village Biriakhedi, District Ratlam, for a consideration of ₹14.50 lakhs.

The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance on 22 November 2010. During the pendency of the suit, the property was sold successively: by Manjula to Naina through sale deed dated 20 September 2010; by Naina to Hira Lal Chopda and Ashish Chopda on 18 December 2013; and by Ashish Chopda to Anil Kumar on 13 December 2016.

The trial Court decreed the suit on 8 February 2022 and annulled the subsequent sale deeds.

The petitioners, who were defendants Nos. 5 and 6, filed First Appeal No. 428 of 2022, while Manju Bala filed First Appeal No. 477 of 2022. Both appeals were dismissed by a coordinate Bench on 3 April 2025.

The present review petition challenged that common judgment, alleging errors apparent on the face of the record, including the appellate Court’s treatment of certain facts as undisputed and its alleged failure to consider the objection that the agreement to sell was executed on an ante-dated stamp paper.

1. Whether the coordinate Bench’s alleged failure to independently consider the petitioners’ submissions and the trial Court’s findings constituted an “error apparent on the face of the record” warranting review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

2. Whether the petitioners could seek re-appreciation of the evidence and re-examination of the findings concerning the agreement to sell, stamp paper, readiness and willingness, and subsequent transfers in review proceedings.

3. Whether the subsequent purchasers’ rights were affected by the doctrine of lis pendens and whether their claim of bona fide purchase could be considered in resisting the decree.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC confer a narrowly circumscribed power of review on grounds of discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

An error apparent must be self-evident and discernible without a long-drawn process of reasoning; review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used merely to substitute another possible view on the merits.

Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, AIR 2001 SC 965, requires a first appellate Court to apply its mind to the issues and contentions, though an appellate Court affirming the trial Court need not mechanically restate all evidence.

S. Madhusudan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255, requires due diligence for reliance on newly discovered material.

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 651, establishes that evidence cannot be re-appreciated in review unless an apparent error or analogous ground is shown.

Tirupati Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, (2024) 20 SCC 188, reiterates the statutory limits of review and the distinction between review and appellate jurisdiction.

Under Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram, (2008) 7 SCC 144, a transferee pendente lite has no independent right to resist or obstruct execution of the decree, and Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2823, holds that the defence of bona fide purchase is unavailable where the subsequent sale is hit by lis pendens.

The Court held that the petitioners’ objections substantially sought reconsideration of the evidence and correctness of the findings already reached by both the trial Court and the first appellate Court.

The alleged misdescription of certain facts as undisputed and the challenge to the treatment of the stamp-paper objection did not disclose a self-evident error requiring no elaborate reasoning.

On a conjoint reading of paragraphs 27 and 28 of the appellate judgment, the Court found that the relevant aspects had been considered and that the petitioners’ disagreement represented an alternative interpretation of the record rather than an error apparent on its face.

The concurrent findings regarding the agreement, the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, and the effect of the subsequent transfers therefore could not be reopened in review.

The Court also noted the respondent’s submission that the transfers made during the suit were governed by lis pendens, thereby limiting the transferees’ ability to resist execution.

The review petition was therefore dismissed, and the judgment dated 3 April 2025 dismissing First Appeal Nos. 428 of 2022 and 477 of 2022 remained undisturbed.