Delhi High Court Allows Review Petition; Finds Earlier Judgment Mistakenly Ignored Signed Agreements to Sell and Sets Aside Dismissal of Specific Performance Appeals
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Earlier Appellate Judgment After Discovering Signed Agreements Were Overlooked
Facts
The dispute concerned Flat No. 126, Maitri Apartments, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi, owned by Nand Lal.
Sanjay Dubey claimed that in 2007 the parties agreed to sell the property for ₹19.50 lakh. According to him, possession was delivered pursuant to the proposed sale, substantial payments aggregating ₹16.65 lakh were made, and two Agreements to Sell were executed—one on stamp paper dated 12 September 2008 and another on plain paper dated 24 October 2008.
Nand Lal denied the existence of any valid Agreement to Sell and instead claimed that the Dubeys were tenants. He instituted a suit for possession, recovery of rent and mesne profits, while Sanjay Dubey filed a suit seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement.
Both suits were decided under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without recording evidence. The Trial Court decreed the possession suit and dismissed the suit for specific performance. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeals on 10 June 2026.
The petitioners thereafter sought review, contending that the appellate judgment proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption that the Agreements to Sell were unsigned and that several material pleadings and statutory provisions had been overlooked.
Issues
- Whether the common appellate judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
- Whether the Court had incorrectly proceeded on the assumption that the Agreements to Sell were unsigned.
- Whether the alleged factual error materially affected the reasoning and outcome of the earlier appellate judgment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that:
- The earlier judgment wrongly recorded that neither the Agreement dated 12 September 2008 nor the Agreement dated 24 October 2008 had been signed by the respondent.
- In reality, both Agreements bore the signatures of both parties and one of them was also witnessed.
- The Court confused the execution of the Agreement to Sell with the execution of the eventual Sale Deed.
- Material pleadings regarding payments, readiness and willingness, contradictory stands on tenancy, and the legal position under the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act had been overlooked.
- The review petition sought only correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and not a rehearing on merits.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued that:
- The alleged errors related merely to appreciation of evidence.
- Even if the Court had interpreted the pleadings differently, such issues could not be corrected in review proceedings.
- The review petitions were effectively seeking a rehearing of the appeals, which falls outside the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC governing review jurisdiction.
The Court reiterated that review is maintainable where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record. While review cannot ordinarily be used to reappreciate evidence or rehear the case, it can be invoked where the judgment proceeds on a demonstrably incorrect factual premise that materially affects the decision.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment primarily turned on the settled principles governing review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC rather than detailed precedent analysis.
The Court emphasized that review lies where the record itself demonstrates an apparent factual error which forms the foundation of the judgment. It distinguished such cases from those involving mere disagreement with appreciation of evidence, which are matters for appeal rather than review.
Court’s Reasoning
Upon examining the record, the Court found that both the Agreements to Sell dated 12 September 2008 and 24 October 2008 did in fact bear the signatures of both parties, and the first agreement was also signed by a witness.
However, the earlier appellate judgment had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the respondent had never signed either agreement. This factual error permeated the entire reasoning of the judgment, leading the Court to conclude that there was no written or signed Agreement to Sell.
The Court held that the dismissal of both Regular First Appeals rested substantially on this mistaken premise. Since the very foundation of the earlier judgment was factually incorrect, the error was apparent on the face of the record and justified exercise of review jurisdiction.
The Court also observed that Nand Lal’s own case was that Ramesh Chandra Dubey was the tenant, whereas Sanjay Dubey claimed possession under the Agreements to Sell, reinforcing that the factual matrix required fresh consideration after correcting the foundational error.
The Court clarified that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the rival claims and was only correcting the apparent factual mistake.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that its earlier common judgment had proceeded on a fundamentally incorrect factual assumption that the Agreements to Sell were unsigned.
Since both agreements were in fact signed and this error formed the basis of the earlier reasoning, the judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the Court allowed both review petitions, set aside the common judgment dated 10 June 2026 in the Regular First Appeals, and restored the matters for fresh hearing.
Case Details
Case: Sanjay Dubey v. Nandlal & Late Ramesh Chandra Dubey (through Legal Heirs) v. Nandlal
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: Review Petition No. 324/2026 in RFA No. 11/2024 and Review Petition No. 329/2026 in RFA No. 482/2023
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date: 03 August 2026
Result: Review petitions allowed. Common judgment dated 10 June 2026 in both Regular First Appeals set aside on account of an error apparent on the face of the record; matters directed to be listed for fresh arguments.
