Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Family Property Dispute Case

The case of N. Tahera & Anr. v. Seema Begum & Anr. involved a family property dispute where the petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision rejecting their Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, stating that there was no error apparent on record that warranted interference.

The ruling emphasizes the principle that review petitions cannot be used as a means to seek re-argument on merits unless a manifest error is present in the original judgment.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose between family members over the ownership and division of certain inherited properties. The petitioners had initially approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a lower court ruling that was unfavorable to them.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-acquits-bombay-hospital-in-medical-negligence-case-key-legal-takeaways/

The Supreme Court rejected the SLP at the admission stage, finding no substantial legal issue that required its intervention. Dissatisfied with the rejection, the petitioners filed a review petition, seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Arguments by the Petitioner

N. Tahera and the other petitioner contended:

• The Supreme Court’s rejection of their SLP was based on an incorrect assessment of the legal issues involved.
• There were significant errors in the lower court’s judgment, which were not properly considered.
• Their case involved crucial property rights that merited a full hearing in open court.

Arguments by the Respondent

Seema Begum and the other respondent countered:

• The review petition merely reiterated the same arguments made in the original SLP.
• No new material facts or errors apparent on record were presented.
• The Supreme Court had already applied its discretion in rejecting the SLP at the admission stage.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, and Aniruddha Bose, ruled:

“We have gone through the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference.”

The Court also dismissed the petitioners’ application to list the review petition for an open court hearing, reaffirming that review petitions are limited in scope and cannot be used to revisit issues already decided.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-cidco-land-dispute-legal-implications-for-government-contracts/

The Court’s ruling confirmed:

• The SLP was rightly rejected at the admission stage.
• The review petition did not present any new evidence or errors warranting reconsideration.
• The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not meant to provide an opportunity for re-arguing the case.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the limited scope of review petitions in the Supreme Court. It reinforces that once a case has been adjudicated and rejected at the admission stage, a review petition cannot be used to re-litigate the same issues unless a clear error is found. The ruling ensures judicial finality and prevents unnecessary prolongation of litigation.

Petitioner Name: N. Tahera & Anr..
Respondent Name: Seema Begum & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 30-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: n.-tahera-&-anr.-vs-seema-begum-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-30-11-2021.pdf