Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Bhatia vs Zonal Manager West on 1 April, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA
KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No.359 of 2025
ASHOK BHATIA
Versus
ZONAL MANAGER WEST & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Bhatia -petitioner in person through V.C.
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal-learned counsel for the
respondents through V.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per:Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard on I.A. No. 4282/2025, which is an application filed under
Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of 9 days in filing the petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 4282/2025 is
allowed and delay of 9 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.
The instant review petition under Order 47 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been filed seeking review of order dated 15/01/2025
passed in W.A. No.2840/2024, whereby the writ appeal has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was working on the
Signature Not Verified
post of Assistant Grade-II in Food Corporation of India and was posted at
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
Waidhan depot under Food Corporation of India Divisional Office at Satna in
the year 1984. While being posted a case was registered by Central Bureau of
Investigation (“CBI” for short) and the petitioner was prosecuted and
convicted under Section 409 of IPC and Section 5 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947, vide judgment dated 29/03/2000. Being aggrieved by
said judgment, petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 900/2000 before
this Court, which is pending adjudication. Owing to his conviction in the case
involving misappropriation of funds and criminal breach of trust as well as
corruption, the respondents passed an order of termination of service in terms
of regulation 63(1) of FCI staff Regulation 1971 and imposed a penalty of
dismissal. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No.
2280/2004, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25/09/2024 by
learned Single Judge. Against the said order of dismissal, petitioner filed
W.A. No. 2840/2024, which also got dismissed vide order dated 15/01/2025.
Being aggrieved by the order impugned, petitioner has filed instant petition.
3. Petitioner submits that he has been terminated from services on account of his
conviction and without holding any departmental inquiry by order dated
10/08/2000. The dismissal order was issued in view of regulation 63(1) of the
FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971, which provides a provisions for special
procedure in certain cases. However, this provision does not say anywhere for
forfeiting the gratuity of the employee in view of the provisions contained in
Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Hence, on these grounds,
the order passed in writ petition deserves to be reviewed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Writ Court has rightly
passed the impugned order and there is no error apparent on the face of
record. Therefore, the present review petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
6. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
3
scope of review and states as follows:-
“Review:-Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself
aggrieved:-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this
Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by
this Code; or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may
apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the
decree or made the order, and the court may make such order
thereon as it thinks fit.
7. The grounds available for filing a review application against a
judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following
words: “1. Application for review of judgment –
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved –
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from
which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and
who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the
decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient
reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order
made against him, may apply for are view of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order.
(2)A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply
for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an
appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal
is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which
he applies for the review.
1[Explanation – The fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any
other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]”
8. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review
application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important
matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within
Signature Not Verified the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
9. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported
in 1980 Supp SCC 562, The Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier
order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which
is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or
undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under:
“12.Areview is not a routine procedure. Here were solved to hear Shri Kapil at length
to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot
review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the
order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra
Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed:
‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant
resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by
judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin
ground but review of an earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality.'”
(emphasis added)
10. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in
(1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one
that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers
of review, the Apex Court held as under:
“7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.1reported in 1964
SCR (5) 174, this Court opined:
‟11.What, however, we are now concerned with is whether
the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case
did not involve any substantial question of law is an „error
apparent on the face of the record‟. The fact that on the
earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts
that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be
conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
5
Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not
follow that it was an „error apparent on the face of the
record‟, for there is a distinction which is real, though it
might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere
erroneous decision and a decision which could be
characterized as vitiated by „error apparent‟. A review is by
no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent
error.‟
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported
in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage from
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 389,this Court once again held that review proceedings
are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the
scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review
inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the
face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of this jurisdiction under
Order 47 rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to
be „reheard and corrected‟. A review petition, it must be remembered
has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be „an appeal in
disguise‟”.
[emphasis added]
11. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court
cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even
if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala State Electricity Board
v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydro power Ltd. And Others reported
in (2005) 6 SCC 651, the Apex Court observed as follows:
10. Ina review petition it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate
the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is
possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us
that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not
support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a
submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition.
The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain
of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced,
the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that
conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some
reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is
any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review
petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would
amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise.”
(emphasis added)
12. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted
to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions
arrivedatinajudgment.Thepowerofreviewisnottobeconfusedwiththeappellate
power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a
subordinate Court. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. V.
Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 501, where it was
held thus:
“11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is
concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in
submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which
had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had
been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review
petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original
matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be
confused with appellate power which enables a superior court
to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not
rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and
overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded
adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with
extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in
exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein
had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard
and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect
method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion,
is in the nature of ‘second innings’ which is impermissible and
unwarranted and cannot be granted.”
(emphasis added)
13. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320,
the Apex Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point
sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and
answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only
because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review
jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review
are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in
Chajju Ram vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &
Ors.18 to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous
to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been
reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores
Ltd. & Ors reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337,.
When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest
on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
8Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the
time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
14. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v.Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 389, the Apex Court was examining an order passed by the
Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment that went in
favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by the
respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had
overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were
in possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary
rights to access his home- stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court
with the following observations:
“3 …It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh and
Others v. State of Punjab reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 there is
nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court
from exercising the power of review which inheres in every
courtofplenaryjurisdictiontopreventmiscarriageofjusticeortocorrect
grave and pulpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive
limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review
may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could
not be produced by him at the time when the order was made;
it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground
that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the
province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be
confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate
court to correct all manner of errors committed by the
subordinate court.”
(emphasis added)
15. In State of West Bengal and Others v.Kamal Sengupta and Another
reported in(2008)8SCC612, the Apex Court emphasized the requirement of
the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not within his
knowledge and held thus:
“21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is
sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such
matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character
that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the
judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important
matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito
justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show
that such additional matter or evidence was not within its
knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same
could not be produced before the court earlier.”
(emphasis added)
16. In the captioned judgment, the term „mistake or error apparent‟ has
been discussed in the following words:
“22. The term ‘mistake or error apparent’ by its very
connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the
record of the case and does not require detailed examination,
scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.
If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long
debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error
apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule
1 CPC or Section 22(3) (f) of the Act. To put it differently an
order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely
because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different
view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of
fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review,
the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its
judgment/decision”.
(emphasis added)
17. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Apex Court explained as to when a
review jurisdiction could be treated as statutory or inherent and held thus :
“18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the
rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way.
The order of the court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of
stare decis is is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in
Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before
justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the court
finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would
not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous
assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall
result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle
be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as
valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of
mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of factor
law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to
avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is
available where the mistake is of the Court”.
(emphasis added)
18. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji
Arjunsinghji reported in (1971) 3 SCC 844, theApex Court held as follows:
“4….. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent
power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by
necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to
notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had
power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to
review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have
reviewed its order…….”
(emphasis added)
19. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar
Rawat and Others reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 896, citing previous
decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with
OrderXLVIIRule1, the Apex Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does
not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor
does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a
decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the
grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be
exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in
the guise of exercising the power of review.
20. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for
successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made
out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S.Bhagirathi Amaal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15840
Vs. Palani Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review,
it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not
an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be
reviewed merely because it is erroneous.
21. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal
Vs.Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that “a party cannot be
permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review.”
22. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the
case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no
error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
impugned.
23. The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(SUSHRUTARVINDDHARMADHIKARI) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
J U DG E JU D GE
skt
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 04-04-2025
13:21:10
[ad_1]
Source link