The suit was initially instituted by the plaintiff (i.e. Respondents in the present appeal before the Supreme Court) in order for her to be declared as the exclusive owner of the property described in the second schedule of the plaint and additionally seeking possession of the same. The suit property belonged to the Plaintiff’s grandmother Fathima Beevi, which the plaintiff had purchased from her by executing a sale deed. The husband of the 1st defendant (i.e. the appellant No.1) got a gift deed executed in his favor by exercising undue influence and coercion on Fathima Beevi. It was prayed by the plaintiff that, if the court concludes that she is not the exclusive owner of the property, her share therein be declared one-sixth and the same be partitioned accordingly. The trial court in this suit held that gift deed was invalid and the sale deed executed in favor of the plaintiff is valid. And that she is entitled to one-sixth share in the second schedule property. The Plaintiff filed a review application before the trial court claiming that the suit ought to have been decreed in its entirety and not for mere one-sixth share. The review application was rejected by the trial court on merits. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court the plaintiff filed a revision application before the High Court. The High Court allowing the revision application filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment of the Trial Court set aside the order of the trial court and modified the decree of the trial court. The effect of the modification was that the decree of trial court which was passed in respect of one-sixth share only in the second schedule property, was extended to the whole of the property. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the (defendants in the original suit) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Whether a Revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against an order of the trial court rejecting on merits an application for Review of an Appealable Decree passed in a Civil Suit?

The Supreme Court observed that “where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and held that the High Court should not have considered the respondent's appeal against the rejection of the respondent's review application of a lower court's appealable decree. However, it was made clear that this would not affect the respondent's right to file an appeal against the trial court's decree.