Jai Nath Yadav & Anr. v. Somnath Yadav @ Shobh Nath Yadav & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 08 May 2026 · 2026:DHC:4068-DB
V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
RFA(COMM) 678/2025
2026:DHC:4068-DB
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that review jurisdiction does not permit re-hearing on merits and upheld the Trial Court's finding that only Rs. 8,00,000/- payment was proved.

Full Text
Translation output
RFA(COMM) 678/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.05.2026
RFA(COMM) 678/2025
JAI NATH YADAV & ANR. .....APPELLANTS
Through: Mr. D.B. Yadav, Mr. Sauraj Yadav and Mr. Satyavijay Yadav, Advs.
VERSUS
SOMNATH YADAV @ SHOBH NATH YADAV & ANR. .....RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. R.N. Dubey and Mr. Himanshu, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 31071/2026 (for exemption)
JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of. RFA(COMM) 678/2025, REVIEW PET. 211/2026 and CM APPL. 31070/2026

3. This petition has been filed by the appellant under Section 114, read with order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 24.03.2026 [the ‘impugned judgment’].

4. This Court vide the impugned judgment had upheld the Trial Court’s findings in its judgment dated 13.10.2025, that the Petitioner (i.e., Signing Date:14.05.2026 18:29 RFA(COMM) 678/2025 Appellant) was only able to prove the payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- [Rupees Eight Lakhs only] to the Respondent through bank transfer and was unable to substantiate its claim for payment of Rs. 24,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty- Four Lakhs only] in cash to the Respondent, out of the alleged payment of Rs. 32,00,000/- [Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs only] said to have been made by the Appellant, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

5. Having perused the grounds raised in the review petition, it is evident that the Appellant seeks a re-hearing of the matter on the merits under the guise of review. The grounds raised essentially seek a re-appreciation of the findings already rendered.

6. No ground raised therein shows any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the findings returned in the judgment warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction.

7. We therefore find no grounds to review the judgment, and the same is dismissed.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J