Manipur High Court
Alfred Kanngam vs The Collector Land Acquisition on 10 July, 2025
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBA KABORAMBAM
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2025.07.16
SINGH 11:47:11 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC [Rev. Pet. (J2)] No. 1 of 2017
Alfred Kanngam
Applicant
Vs.
The Collector Land Acquisition, Ukhrul; & Ors.
Respondents
Clubbed with
MC [(Rev. Pet (J2)] No. 1 of 2023
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
(ORDER)
10.07.2025
[1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ajoy Pebam and
learned senior counsel for the State respondents, Mr. M. Rarry.
[2] Whereas learned senior counsel for the State respondents,
Mr. M. Rarry, submits that even the issues in between the review
petitioner/applicant and respondents have went up to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1858-1859/2016
and the Honble Supreme Court of India had given opportunity to move this
Court by filing necessary application for seeking clarification/modification
of the impugned order. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant be
directed to clarify the status under either Section 151 CPC or Section 152
CPC
[3] However, the learned senior counsel for the State, Mr. M.
Rarry submits that review of a review cannot arise, by referring to a
Page | 1
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeals
No. 5503-04 of 2022 arising out of petitions for Special Leave To Appeal
(Civil) No. 9602-03 of 2022, whereas in para No. 35 of the aforesaid SLP
Proceeding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made an observation that
recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is
impermissible more so, when the respondents have miserably failed to
draw the attention of this Court to any circumstances that would entitle
them to invoke review jurisdiction within the ambit of the Rules. Under the
rules, the respondents were not required to produce “genuine” documents
but new documents/evidence that was not within their knowledge and
could not have been so even after exercise of due diligence, which could
have turned the tables in their favour. Nor has any error apparent on the
face of the record been brought out by them.
[4] Whereas the connected proceeding in MC [Rev. Pet. (J2)]
No. 1 of 2023 has been filed whereby seeking for amendment in MC [Rev.
Pet. (J2) No. 1 of 2017, keeping in view the review petition as initiated
against the respondents.
[5] However, in a given peculiar facts and circumstances of the
cases are concerned, it is deemed to refer to the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors.
Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Ors. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362,
wherein it is observed in para and 16 as thus:
Page | 2
“15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution
Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired)
and Ors. MANU/SC/0030/2021 :(2021) 3 SCC 1, held that even the
change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate
Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review.
16. The gist of the aforesaid decision is that
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record justifying
the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1
Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it
should not require any long-drawn process of
Page | 3
reasoning on the points where there may conceivably
be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/
judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
Whereas, in para No. 20 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held as thus:
2 0 . Taking recourse to the said observations made by the co-ordinate
bench, the learned Counsels for the Review Petitioners have urged to
review the impugned judgment. The said submission of the learned
Counsels for the review Petitioners deserves to be outrightly rejected
for the simple reason that any passing reference of the impugned
judgment made by the Bench of the equal strength could not be a
ground for review. It is well settled proposition of law that a co-ordinate
Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment
rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of the same strength. If a
Bench does not accept as correct the decision on a question of law of
another Bench of equal strength, the only proper course to adopt would
be to refer the matter to the larger Bench, for authoritative decision,
otherwise the law would be thrown into the state of uncertainty by
reason of conflicting decisions.
[6] Wherein in para 11, it is indicated that In Parsion Devi and
Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. MANU/SC/1360/1997 : (1997) 8 SCC 715,
this Court made very pivotal observations:
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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
Page | 4
justifying the court to exercise its power of review Under Order
47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction
Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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.”
[7] Whereas in Para No. 8, it is indicated that before adverting
to the contentions raised by the learned Counsels for the parties, let us
regurgitate the well settled law on the scope of review as contemplated in
XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order XLVII of Code of Civil
Procedure.
[8] Whereas in Para 9, it is indicated that in the words of Krishna
Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) “a plea of review, unless the first judicial
view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat
cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of
discovery of flaws and reversal of result, a review in the Counsel’s
mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must
rest in peace.
[9] Therefore, keeping in view the scope of Section 151 of the
CPC that there is no limit to exercise the inherent power, either effecting
or affecting any orders under the scope, that is the first limb of the said
provision of law, the second limb of the said provision of law relating to
preventing the abuse of process of law, whereas the third limb of the said
Page | 5
provision of law is securing the ends of justice, the aforesaid limb of the
said provision of law are applicable to both the parties in the proceeding.
[10] Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of reliance which is made
(Supra) are concerned, it is said that this review application doe not
survive for consideration even the proceeding MC [Rev. Pet. (J2)] No. 1 of
2023 whereby seeking for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, but
under the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC , there shall be some guiding
principle of the said position of law under what circumstances and under
what stage this application has to be filed.
[11] However, the issues in between the petitioner and the
respondents have went up the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a
proceeding in the aforesaid Special leave to Appeal and wherein,
opportunity was given to seeking clarification, but the counsel for the
applicant is not confirmed whether to seeking for clarification in respect
of power as under Section 151 CPC or Under Section 152 CPC and therefore
it is said that keeping in view the ratio of reliance which is stated supra
these proceeding in MC[Rev. Pet. (J2)] No. 1 of 2017 seeking for
modification of judgment and order dated 16.12.2015 and 23.07.2015,
learned counsel for the applicant is not confirmed to clarify the position of
law for seeking modification, but the petition is of the year 2015 and
another application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking
amendment and this proceeding has been initiated in the year 2023.
Page | 6
[12] Therefore, keeping in view the provision of Section 151 of
CPC and also keeping in view the ratio of reliance stated (supra), these
review applications do not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, both the applications are hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
Page | 7
[ad_1]
Source link