[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [CASE NUMBER]
1. [ENTITY]
2. [ENTITY] Both sons of Late [ENTITY], No.1, resident of Qr. No. 1052, Sector 9 C, Street No.26, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, No.2, resident of Rajhans Hotel, Hari Gopal Mazumdar Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad Appellants Versus
1. [ENTITY], son of Late Nandlal Sultania, resident of opposite [ENTITY] Talab, Main Road, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad.
2. [ENTITY] @ Deepak Kumar Sultania, son of Late Babulal Sultania, resident of opposite [ENTITY] Talab, Main Road, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad.
3. M/s Tridivesh Properties (Pvt.) Ltd.
4. M/s [ENTITY]
Both nos. 3 and 4 having their office at Hari Gopal Mazumdar Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
Respondents
5. [ENTITY], son of Late [ENTITY], resident of Rajhans Hotel, Hari Gopal Mazumdar Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
6. [ENTITY], son of Late [ENTITY], resident of Rajhans Hotel, Hari Gopal Mazumdar Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
7. [ENTITY], son of Late [ENTITY], resident of Rajhans Hotel, Hari Gopal Mazumdar Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
8. [ENTITY], son of Late [ENTITY], resident of M.I.G. B-52, Housing Colony, Sardar Patel Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
9. [ENTITY], wife of [ENTITY] and daughter of Late [ENTITY], resident of III G-24, Housing Colony, Sardar Patel Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
10. [ENTITY], wife of [ENTITY] and daughter of Late [ENTITY], resident of Bhuwaneshwar Bhawan, [ENTITY], P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
11. [ENTITY], wife of [ENTITY] and daughter of Late [ENTITY], resident of Adarsh Nagar, Telipara, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad.
12. [ENTITY], wife of Late [ENTITY], resident of Rajhans Hotel, Hari Gopal Mazumdar Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad Proforma Respondents
For the Appellants : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate For Respondents : Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] By Court- 1. Heard the parties.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Dhanbad in [CASE NUMBER] whereby and where under the learned court below allowed the review petition.
3. The brief facts of this case is that the plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of declaration of right, title and interest over 52 decimals of land. The case of the plaintiff is that the ex-landlord settled 30 decimals of land and executed an unregistered [ENTITY] in favour of the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff thereafter encroached upon and 22 decimals of vacant land. The plaintiff inter alia prayed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit Schedule A of the plaint. But neither the [ENTITY] nor the Khata No. of the suit schedule land has been mentioned in the Schedule. The description of Schedule A land has been given by the plaintiff as under:-
Schedule-A Part and parcel of lands bearing plot nos. 1052, 1054 and 1055 under Municipal Khata of Ward No. V (Old) new Ward No.20, .52 (fifty two) decimals P.S. Bankmore, District- Dhanbad, butted and bounded as follows:-
North: Rajhans Hotel, Radiant English medium School and house of [ENTITY], South: S.S.L.N.T. Hospital, East: Harigopal, Mazumdar Road, West: House of [ENTITY] and others.
4. The case of the defendant is that [ENTITY] was the original recorded tenant. His property was sold to M/s Tridivesh Properties (Pvt.) Ltd and M/s [ENTITY] and thereafter M/s Tridivesh Properties (Pvt.) Ltd and M/s [ENTITY] sold the land to the original defendant.
5. The learned trial court by its judgment and decree in [CASE NUMBER], dated 09.09.2002 dismissed the suit.
6. The learned lower appellate court being the court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Dhanbad in [CASE NUMBER] reversed the judgment and allowed the appeal without any cost and set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court.
7. Mr. [ENTITY] , the learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the review application should have been adjudicated by the same court which passed the judgment in the lower appellate court and relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein the Hon'ble Court in para-14 has referred to the judgment of the said Hon'ble Court in [PRECEDENT] wherein it has been held as under:-
14. "It is true there is nothing in [SECTION] of the [ACT] to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to be exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit. That would be in the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of error committed by the Subordinate Court." (Emphasis Supplied) and in para-16 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the decisions of the said Hon'ble Court in the case of [ENTITY] Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. [ENTITY] Pishak Sharma reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047 which reads as under:-
16. "It is true as observed by this Court in [PRECEDENT] there is nothing in [SECTION] of the [ACT] to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court". (Emphasis Supplied) and also in para-18 of the said decision, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] relying upon the judgments in the cases of [ENTITY]'s (Supra) and Smt. [ENTITY]) observed as under:-
18. "Under [SECTION], [ACT] a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evidence and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under [SECTION], [ACT]. In exercise of the jurisdiction under [SECTION], [ACT] it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise".
(Emphasis Supplied) submitted that the court below has exceeded its jurisdiction of review while passing the impugned order in exercise of the power of review.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was no new fact relied upon by the learned court below while reviewing the judgment of the lower appellate court in [CASE NUMBER] and since subsequent to filing the review petition, the [CASE NUMBER] was filed by the respondents in this case. The learned court below ought not have entertained the review application.
9. Mr. [ENTITY], the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that the respondent Nos.6 of the [CASE NUMBER] who is the son of the original plaintiff and the brother of the two appellants of that appeal in para-13 (vi and vii) at page-5 of his show-cause filed in response to the [CASE NUMBER] has exposed the fraud practised by the appellants of the said appeal upon the court by pleading as under:-
(vi) Four brothers of this opposite party including [ENTITY] have been residing in Rajhans Hotel building but they had/have no concern with or right in aforesaid land i.e. suit land. But now this opposite party has come to learn that his brothers especially [ENTITY] had his greedy eyes on that land.
(vii) This opposite party has come to learn recently, after thorough enquiry, that [ENTITY] with an evil design to grab the suit land forged few ante- dated documents including one [ENTITY] to show that said land was taken in settlement by [ENTITY] from [ENTITY] of Jharia i.e. ex-landlord in the year 1940.
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that during the pendency of the review petition, the petition was filed by the respondents of this appeal-who are the review petitioners in the learned court below, to call for the Revenue Records pertaining to C.S. Khata No.157 which was rejected by the learned court below and the review petitioners/respondents filed [CASE NUMBER] in this Court and in the counter-affidavit was filed by the present appellant [ENTITY] in the said [CASE NUMBER], he has categorically stated that the entry made in [CASE NUMBER] had no concern with the suit plot. It is further submitted by the respondents that after filing of the suit, the plaintiff amended his plaint and pleaded that though the suit was initially for declaration, right, title and interest but by way of amendment they have pleaded that on 11.08.2000 and 07.09.2000, the defendants have entered into the said land and kept one dumper and took photographs of the suit land and they also modified their original relief to a decree for confirmation of possession or in alternative for recovery of the possession if the court finds that the plaintiff is out of the possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit.
11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants have mutated their name in respect of adjacent property showing the possession of original vendor of the defendants and the original recorded tenant [ENTITY] in the southern side of the suit land which prima facie falsifies the case of the plaintiff that they were in possession of the suit land.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted that apart from the unregistered [ENTITY] and rent receipts purportedly issued by the ex-landlord, there is no other document of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land and those documents were also not prepared in accordance with law in the sense that the [ENTITY] document bears the signature of one [ENTITY], purportedly a power of attorney holder of ex- landlord but the power of attorney was never brought on record nor during the trial, the said [ENTITY] has been examined. Further no one from the family of the ex-landlord has been examined and the said [ENTITY] and rent receipts are in Bengali language which is not the language of the court as the language of the court is Hindi. It is also submitted that the description of the suit land in the absence of revenue khata no. is vague. On the other hand the defendants have documents of title by way of sale deed supported by entry of mutation in their name in the office of Circle Officer as well as the Municipality and they have the supporting land revenue receipts and tax receipts to show their possession over the suit property. Further, the plaintiffs do not have document to show that the ex-landlord after vesting of the land in the state has filed any return or signed the settlement of land with the plaintiff nor the required Form- K, L and M of [ACT] has been filed by the plaintiff and neither it is the case of the plaintiffs that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession in respect of 22 decimals of land admittedly encroached by the plaintiff nor they have disclosed who is the real owner of the said 22 decimals of land and the date from which their possession became hostile animus with the real owner. It is an apparent error on the record that the learned court below in the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2005 passed in [CASE NUMBER] has observed that the appellant of that suit has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and particularly when the plaintiffs themselves are not sure whether they were in possession of the suit land as they have prayed for the alternative remedy of recovery possession. It was further submitted that the learned court below certainly erred by observing that the plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the suit land and certainly such an observation is an error apparent on the face of the record and as admitted by the respondent No.6 in the show-cause filed in the review petition, the plaintiff has committed fraud upon the court basing upon which the judgment and decree in [CASE NUMBER] has been passed by the learned appellate court below.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [ENTITY] (Dead) through [PRECEDENT] where in the facts and circumstances of that case, where the learned court below observed that the two hukumnamas involved in that case were unregistered documents hence no title could have been conferred upon the alleged settlee by virtue of those hukumnamas. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere in the said findings of the learned court below in the facts and circumstances of that case. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein in paragraphs-88, 89 and 90 has held as under:-
88. "We are, furthermore, of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a review application cannot be said to be ex facie bad in law. [SECTION] of the Code empowers a court to review its order if the conditions precedent laid down therein are satisfied. The substantive provision of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court except those which are expressly provided in [SECTION] of the Code in terms whereof it is empowered to make such order as it thinks fit".
89. "[SECTION] of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason".
90. "Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order.
An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words "sufficient reason" in [SECTION] of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit." (Emphasis Supplied)
14. On this point, the learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein the Hon'ble Court in paragraphs-3, 13, 14 and 16 has held as under:-
3. "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord [ENTITY] observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" ([PRECEDENT])
13. " 'Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal' observed Chief Justice [ENTITY] of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree- by the first court or by the highest court-has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings."
14. "Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order."
16. "Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly-discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim." (Emphasis Supplied)
15. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs- 33 and 36 as under:-
33. "Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage."
36. "From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away.
In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est." (Emphasis Supplied)
16. Learned counsel for the respondents next relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] the Division Bench held in Para-11 that "It is a settled principle of law that an Act, which is prima facie, bad and fraudulent in nature, cannot get validation by the order of the Judicial Commissioner. Thus, prima facie, the order of the Judicial Commissioner, which may be based on misrepresentation and fraudulent act, cannot be relied upon. It is well settled principle that fraud vitiates everything."
17. So far as the maintainability of review application during the pendency of the Second Appeal is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein the question formulated by the Full Bench to consider was 'whether the filing of an appeal subsequent to the filing of an application for review makes the hearing of the review application incompetent?' and held in paragraph-41 and under:-
41. "The powers of an appellate Court are to be found enumerated in [SECTION], [ACT] The grounds which would justify a Court to entertain an application for review have, on the other hand, been laid down in [SECTION] read with [SECTION], [SECTION], [ACT] [SECTION], [SECTION] is a reproduction of [SECTION] of the [ACT] which is substantially the same as [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It will be noticed that it is open under these sections and orders to a person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order specified in Clause (a), (b) or
(c) of [SECTION] to apply for a review on one of the following grounds : (a) discovery of new or important matter or evidence which, notwithstanding the fact that the party aggrieved had exercised due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, (b) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) for any other sufficient reason. When the Court grants a review it is open to it to either re-hear the whole case or confine the hearing only to the particular point on which the review was allowed. It will be noticed that one of the conditions laid down for an application for review is that it must be filed before an appeal has been preferred. On the question as to what is meant by the words "an appeal has been preferred," I may refer to a case 41 [CASE NUMBER] in which a decree was passed by the High Court of Calcutta in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction on 4th March 1986. The memorandum of review was filed on 20th May 1936. Five days later, i.e., on 25th May 1936 a memorandum of appeal was filed against the decree of 4th March 1936. The question was whether the review application was filed at a time when no appeal had been preferred. The view of the Court was that the review application had been filed before the appeal was preferred. [ENTITY] J. held that the review had been filed before the appeal was preferred and that the Court could not be said to have been deprived of the jurisdiction to entertain the application for review on the ground that when the application came on to be dealt with an appeal was pending. The crucial date, therefore, is the filing of the application for review. If on that date the appellate Court has no appeal pending before it, the review application is under the Code, as it stands, competent. The power to entertain the review remains in existence till such period as the appeal is not heard and disposed of. After the appeal has been heard and a decree passed by the appellate Court, it is not open to the Court before whom the application for review was presented to proceed with its hearing.
But where an application for review comes to be heard and decided before the appeal is heard and finally disposed of, the position is that it is incompetent for the appellate Court to hear the appeal for the new decree is, in that case, held to supersede the decree appealed from. That this is the law is clear from a long course of decisions to which attention has been drawn pointedly by my brother, [ENTITY]. I may say that my interpretation of those cases is that they lay down that where an application for review of judgment is granted, the order for review supersedes the original decree and the decree under appeal ceases to exist and the appeal cannot be heard. This proposition is deducible from the following cases : 6 Cal. 22, 28 ALL. 240, 34 ALL. 282, 44 Cal. 1011, 31 Bom. L.R.137, 34 C.W.N. 1002 and 35 C.W.N. 251. The position, then, is that, as laid down by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] JJ. In [CASE NUMBER].
"the Court has power, and in fact is bound to proceed with the application for review notwithstanding the fact that an appeal has been subsequently filed in the case. But that power exists so long as the appeal is not heard, because once the appeal is heard, the decree on appeal is the final decree in the case, and the application for review of judgment of the Court of first instance can no longer be proceeded with. Whether it can be so proceeded with (after the appeal is heard) in cases coming under [SECTION], [SECTION] it is unnecessary for us to consider. On the other hand, if the application for review is successful, the appeal cannot proceed."
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. Hence, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the learned court below has rightly allowed the review petition and this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
19. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding the review application should have been heard by the court which passed the judgment is concerned, by referring to [SECTION] of the [ACT] is concerned, [SECTION] is in strict sense would apply to the case of a court constituting of more than one judges which is not the case in hand. Of course, there is general principle for very good reason that a review must be heard by the same judge or by the same court but there are situations in which it is not possible where the same judicial officer is not available and in this situation it is well settled law that any other court of concurrent jurisdiction can hear the case as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Karnatka High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT].
20. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that review application was admitted by the same judge who passed the impugned judgment but consequent upon the transfer of the earlier judge who passed the impugned judgment and decree in [CASE NUMBER], the same was heard by another Additional District Judge having concurrent jurisdiction. So, in this backdrop I do not find any illegality on this score alone to set aside the impugned order.
21. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding the filing of the Second Appeal by the respondents against the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court in [CASE NUMBER] is concerned, it will be profitable to quote [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] which reads as under:-
[SECTION] REVIEW
1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
114. Review.- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law it is crystal clear that law mandates that once the second appeal is filed after that a review petition cannot be entertained. But here the review petition was filed prior to the filing the Second Appeal by the respondents of this appeal. So, in this backdrop I am persuaded by the reasoning of the majority judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] (Supra) and I am of the opinion that the subsequent filing of the Second Appeal will not be a bar to carry on with the review petition till the Second Appeal is heard.
22. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding the absence of discovery of new and important evidence, which was not within the knowledge of the respondents of this appeal having brought on record, the review petition ought not to have been entertained by the learned court below is concerned, I have no hesitation in holding that in the case of [PRECEDENT] (Supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically mentioned the scope and circumstances under which the power of review can be exercised and certainly discovery of new facts is not sine qua non for exercising the power of review under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT].
23. Moreover, the show-cause filed by the respondent Nos.6 and the counter-affidavit filed by the appellants in [CASE NUMBER] can be termed as discovery of a new and important evidence. Further the observation that the appellants of that appeal have perfected their title by way of adverse possession by the learned court below in the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2005 passed in [CASE NUMBER], even though it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession in respect of 22 decimals of land admittedly encroached by the plaintiffs and in the absence of essential pleading for declaration of title by adverse possession like who is the real owner of the said 22 decimals of land and the date from which the possession of the plaintiffs became hostile animus with the real owner, can certainly be termed as error apparent on the face of the record.
24. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law discussed above, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned court below was well within its power to review the judgment and decree passed in [CASE NUMBER] by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court III, Dhanbad. Hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference of this Court.
25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the principle of law as discussed above, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without any cost.
26. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court below with a copy of this judgment forthwith.
([ENTITY], J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 16th March, 2018 AFR/ [ENTITY]