PURUSHOTTAM DAS Vs. SUNDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short ground which has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 13.11.1998 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 402/97 by which the appellant's aforesaid appeal was dismissed is that he was not given sufficient and proper opportunity of hearing by the trial Court more particularly with regard to the cross examination of the witnesses adduced by the plaintiff. He has further contended that the trial Court overlooked the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure for having wrongly closed his evidence. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly untenable since I had summoned record from the trial Court which was made available at the time of hearing of the appeal and the entire order sheet was fully perused, the relevant extract from the copy of the said order sheet of the trial Court has again been made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of this review petition. At the cost of avoiding repetition, I would like to state that the trial Court has given very cogent and convincing reasons for closing the defence evidence inasmuch as, the application under Order 14 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure which was presented before the trial Court by the plaintiff on 5.7.1997, the trial Court gave as many as 19 opportunities to the defendant to lead the evidence in rebuttal i.e. w.e.f. 5.7.1993 to 19.8.1994. From the perusal of the order sheet, it has further been apparent that the Examination-in-Chief was closed on 21.5.1993 only after the appellant had failed to tender the evidence on his behalf.

(2.) Hence, I do not find any justification for recalling my order dated 13.11.1998. Moreover, I am of the considered view that this cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record. I am fortified in my observation from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Parsion Devi and Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors. : 1997 (8) SCC 715 . where the similar question had arise for consideration of the Apex Court. It was held by the Apex Court that "mistake or error apparent on the face of record" is one which is self-evident and does not require a; process of reasoning. It was further observed that the review jurisdiction cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction.

(3.) Vide order dated 13.11.1998 while disposing of the appeal on merits, six months time was granted to the tenant appellant to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent-landlord subject to his furnishing requisite Under taking as per the rules within three weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and the same was extended till date but, surprisingly even till date no Undertaking has come on record.