N.ANANTHA REDDYversusANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.

                     [2013] 12 S.C.R. 555


                    N.ANANTHA REDDY                                 A
                               v.
                 ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal Nos.10779-10780 of 2013)
                    DECEMBER 2, 2013                                B
      [R.M. LODHA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

     Review:

      Review jurisdiction - Held: Is extremely limited and          C
unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record,
the order/judgment does not call for review - The mistake
apparent on record means that the mistake is self evident,
needs no search and stares at its face - Review jurisdiction
is not an appeal in disguise - It does not permit rehearing of      o
 the matter on merits - In the instant case, the High Court
 while considering the application for review, had a fresh look
at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded in
the suit and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled
its earlier order dated 08.06.2011 - The course followed by         E
 High Court is clearly flawed - High Court exceeded its review
jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated
 08. 06. 2011 - High Court was not at all justified to review the
order dated 08.06.2011 - Impugned order is set aside.
      In a suit for injunction restraining the Municipal            F
Corporation and the Assistant City Planner, respondents
nos. 2 and 3, respectively, from interfering with the
construction being put up by the plaintiff (respondent no.
1), the appellant (i.e. plaintiff's neighbor) filed applications
for impleadment and interim relief claiming infringement            G
of his right of light and air, if the construction by the
plaintiff was commenced and completed. The trial court
allowed the applications and the High Court by its order
dated 8.6.2011 dismissed the revision petitions filed by
                                555                                 H
    556      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A the plaintiff. However, In the applications for review flied
  by the plaintiff, the High Court, by order dated 13.12.2011,
  recalled its order dated 8.6.2011 and directed the trial
  court to reconsider the appllcatlons for lmpleadment
  afresh.
B
          Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. The review jurisdiction Is extremely
  limited and unless there Is mistake apparent on the face
  of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review.
C The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake
  Is self-evident, needs no search and stares at Its face.
  Review Jurisdiction Is not an appeal In disguise. The
  review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
  [para 9] [561 ·F·G]
D
       1.2. In the Instant case, the High Court while
  considering the application for review, had a fresh look
  at the question whether the appellant could be impleaded
  In the suit flied by respondent No. 1 and, In the light of
E the view which it took, it recalled Its earlier order dated
  08.06.2011. The course followed by the High Court Is
  clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded Its review
  jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated
  08.06.2011.The High Court was not at all justified to
F review the order dated 08.06.2011. The Impugned order
  dated 13.12.2011 Is set aside. [para 9, 11 and 12] [561 ·E·
  F; 562-F]
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
    10779-780 of 2013.
G
         From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2011 of the
    High Court of A. P. at Hyderabad in RCMP No. 5278 and 5279
    of 2011 in CRP No. 3459 and 3465 of 2010.

          Bina Madhavan, Praseena E. Joseph, S. Udaya Kumar
H
      N.ANANTHA REDDY v. ANSHU KATHURIA                       557

Sagar, Shivendra Singh, Rahul Pandey (for Lawyers Knit &Co.)          A
for the Appellant.
    G. Ramakrishna Prasad, B. Suyodhan, Filza Moonis,
Mohd, Wasay Khan, D. Bharat Kumar, Sayooj Mohandas M.,
Abhijit Sengupta for the Respondents.
                                                                      B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
     2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration      C
and perpetual injunction against the Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2 herein) and the
Assistant City Planner (respondent No. 3 herein). In the suit, the
respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009
issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation Act, 1955 be declared as illegal, void and not            D
legally tenable. It was further prayed that the defendants
(respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) have no right to interfere with
the construction being put up by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also
prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the two defendants,
their officers/officials/servants from interfering with the suit      E
scheduled property and by directing them not to demolish or
cause any damage to the suit schedule property.

      3. The appellant, who is plaintiff's neighbour, made
applications for his impleadment in the suit and the application      F
for interim relief. The applicant did not claim any right, title or
interest in the suit schedule property but claimed that there is
infringement of his right of light and air if the construction by
the plaintiff is commenced and completed and, therefore, he
is a proper party in the matter.                                      G
    4. The trial court heard the plaintiff and the proposed party
and by order dated 20.07.2010 allowed the said applications.
The trial court, while allowing the said applications made by lhe
present appellant, observed as follows :-
                                                                      H
    558       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A                "The claim of petitioner is that, though he is not
          claiming right over the property of plaintiff, his grievance
          is only about the construction being made by the plaintiff
          because it is effecting his right for light and air. The
          objection of the plaintiff is that because he is challenging
8         the notice issued by the Municipality in respect of the
          construction, since the petitioner is not having any right over
          the suit property, he is not necessary party. I have
          considered other submissions also made and the citations
          relied by the either side. Under Order 1 Rule 10 a party
          would become necessary party or proper party if he is
c         having only over the subject matter to be adjudication under
          the suit and then can be impleaded. In this case though
          the third party petitioner is not claiming any title over the
          property. Even if the pleadings of the plaintiff have to be
          considered, the title of the plaintiff over the suit property is
D         not in dispute. What is in dispute among the plaintiff and
          the defendants already on record is about the construction
          being made by the plaintiff. Because the defendants
          already on record have said to have issued notice to the
          plaintiff stating that the construction is illegal. Challenging
E         the said notice the present suit is filed. The present suit is
          filed after withdrawing the previous suit for injunction filed
          against Municipality said to be filed before issuance of the
          notice under Section 452 of Municipal Act. In that case the
          petitioner had already been impleaded on his application
F         as he was expressing the grievance of the infringement of
          his right for light and air in view of the construction of the
          plaintiff. Having considered the decisions relied by either
          party to my considered opinion, the decision relied by the
          third party petitioner is that similar facts as of the present
G         case on hand wherein the Court held that though the said
          third party is not a necessary party, but he is proper party
          in respect of his grievance to the suit proceedings there
          in and ordered his impleading in the suit. The facts in the
          decisions relied by the Learned Counsel for plaintiff are
H         not similar to the facts on hand. Therefore by following the
      N.ANANTHA REDDY v. ANSHU KATHURIA                        559
                [R.M. LODHA, J.)
    decisions relied by Learned Counsel for third party                A
    petitioner in 2005 (6) ALD NOC 223 (Between : Neelam
    Ajit Vs. S. Suresh Reddy and another), I hold that the third
    party petitioner can be impleaded in the suit and as well
    as the application for injunction as Defendant No. 3 and
    Respondent No. 3 respectively."                                    B

    5. The above order of the trial court was challenged by the
respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) before the High Court. The High
Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dated 08.06.2011
dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the respondent         C
No. 1 herein by observing as follows :

     "4. It is to be noted that the vendor of the plaintiff and the
     vendor of the first respondent herein are neighbours,
     having purchased common property and dividing the same
     into two portions and one portion comprising an extent of         D
     790 sq. yards was purchased by the first respondent and
     the other portion comprising of 580 sq. yards was
     purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff. It is further stated
     that both the parties made constructions in their respective
     plots and allegations and counter allegations were made           E
     against one another alleging deviations from the
     sanctioned plan and violation of the building rules.

     5. It is not disputed that previously in the similar
circumstances, this Court by common order dated 25.10.2010             F
in CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010, dismissed the said
revision petitions and confirmed the orders passed by the trial
court, permitting the first respondent to come on record as
defendant in the said suit OS No. 960 of 2010 and copy of the
said order is placed on record. The issue raised in the present
revision petitions virtually covered by the said earlier order dated   G
25.10.2010 in CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010 and adopting
the reasons mentioned therein, the present revision petitions
are also dismissed."

                                                                       H
    560       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A        6. The respondent No. 1 then made applications for review
    of the order of the High Court dated 08.06.2011.
         7. The High Court by the impugned order recalled its
    earlier order dated 08.06.2011 and directed the trial court to
    consider the applications for impleadment afresh.
8
        8. While recalling the order dated 08.06.2011, the High
    Court observed thus:

          "11. During enquiry of the review applications, the
c         petitioner filed several documents including the sale deeds
          and the sanctioned plan and also photographs in support
          of his contention that while making the construction he has
          left the space towards set backs as required under the
          rules and the construction is in accordance with the
D         sanctioned plan and the question of petitioner's
          construction causing obstruction to the free flow of light and
          air to the first respondent's six storied building does not
          arise. The said documents were not filed before the trial
          Court and hence, there was no occasion for the trial Court
          to refer to the same in the impugned order. The trial court
E
          ordered impleadment of the first respondent herein mainly
          on the ground that in the earlier suit, which was filed by the
          plaintiff against the municipality for mere injunction, the first
          respondent was impleaded on his application. It is stated
          that the earlier suit was withdrawn and subsequently,
F         plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that the notice
          issued under section 452 of the Municipal Corporation Act
          is illegal. Admittedly, no relief is sought in the present suit
          against the first respondent. The question as to whether
          or not the first respondent herein would be a proper and
G         necessary party having regard to the nature of the relief
          prayed for in the present suit is a matter to be considered
          independently, irrespective of impleadment of the first
          respondent herein in the earlier suit, which was filed only
          for injunction. The trial court has to consider the question
H         as to whether or not the first respondent is a proper and
      N.ANANTHA REDDY v. ANSHU KATHURIA                       561
                [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     necessary party to the present suit in the light of the          A
     documents now sought to be filed by the petitioner. Order
     1 Rule 10 CPC contemplates the impleadment of proper
     and necessary party, whose presence before the Court is
     necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely
     to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in      B
     the suit. The question as to whether or not the first
     respondent is a proper and necessary party, who can be
     imp leaded in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has to be
     considered keeping in view the relief prayed for in the
     present suit and the dispute that is required to be settled      c
     pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the Municipal
     Corporation. The impugned order passed by the trial court
     permitted impleadment of the first respondent on the
     premise that he was previously impleaded in another suit,
     which was filed for injunction is therefore held unsustainable   D
     and the same is accordingly set aside."
     9. A careful look at the impugned order would show that
the High Court had a fresh look at the question whether the
appellant could be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondent
 No. 1 and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its   E
earlier order dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the
High Court is clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded its review
jurisdiction by reconsidering the merits of the order dated
08.06.2011. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and
 unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the      F
 order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent
on record means that the mistake is self evident, needs no
search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not
an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing
of the matter on merits.                                              G
      10. The order passed by the High Court on 08.06.2011,
on a careful reading, shows that the High Court instead of
repeating the reasons which it had given in other revision
petitions being CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010, while it was
fully conscious of the fact that those civil revisions arose from     H
    562        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A a different suit followed its order in CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882
  of 2010. The High Court was fully conscious of the factual and
  legal position while it was considering the civil revision petitions
  filed by the present respondent No. 1. In the order upon which
  reliance was placed by the High Court while dismissing the civil
B revision petitions, the High Court had noted thus :-

           "No doubt, no relief is sought for agairist the proposed party
           in the suit. The object of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to
           implead a third party to the suit is that the dispute in the
           suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to
c          avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There must be some
           semblance of right to the proposed party. If the petitioner
           violates the building plan without leaving set backs, cellar
           etc., then certainly it would cause inconvenience to the
           neighbours. The proposed party is one of the neighbours.
D                  ' to safeguard his interest, in view of the fact that .
           Therefore,
           he has got some semblance of right, though no relief is
           claimed against him, he would be necessary and proper
           party to come on record. That is why the trial Court rightly
           impleaded him as a party to the suit and I.A. and there are
E          no grounds to interfere with the same. The revision is
           devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed."

         11. In our view, the High Court was not at all justified to
    review the order dated 08.06.2011.
F
         12. The impugned order dated 13.12.2011 is, accordingly,
    set aside. Appeals are allowed as above. No costs.

    R.P.                                              Appeals allowed.