Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
REVIEW PETITION No. 657 of 2021
PRADEEP SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Khot - Government Advocate for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 10/01/2025
Delivered on 28/01/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The instant review petition has been filed seeking
review/recalling of the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by this
Court in W.P. No.5961/2021, whereby the petition preferred by
the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The said writ petition was dismissed in the following
manner:
Thus, from the perusal of the Section 51 it is
apparently clear that the Board of Revenue is
having powers to take up the matter and if deems
it fit can grant permission for review of the order.
Thereafter, the order which is proposed to be
reviewed or reversed the notice is required to be
issued to the effected party and without hearing
2the effected party, no orders can be reversed. In
the present case, the learned Board of Revenue
while setting aside the orders passed by the SDO
and Additional Commissioner have taken up the
matter on its own and has granted permission for
review of the order. It is further observed in the
order that prior to reviewing the order the notice
to the effected party be given. In such
circumstances, no illegality is said to have been
committed by the learned Board of Revenue in
providing permission for review of the order. The
learned Board of Revenue is having ample
powers under Section 51 of MPLRC to take up
the matter even in suo motu proceedings. As
required under Section 51 the written permission
is also being granted by the order passed by the
Board of Revenue for review of the order. In such
circumstances, no illegality is said to have been
committed by the learned Board of Revenue. The
order is just and proper and does not call for any
interference in the writ petition. The petition sans
merits and is hereby dismissed.
3. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the
record, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned order herein nor there is any error apparent on the face
of record, which could be pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner, as no any ground as mentioned under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC has been taken or has been demonstrated in the present
petition which could entail this Court to recall or review the order
impugned.
4. It would be profitable to quote Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:-
”1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any
person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a
3decree 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 error
apparent on the face of the record or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review
of the decree 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 applied for the review.
[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.]”
5. Apart from the above, section 114 of the CPC which is the
substantive provision and deals with the scope of review is
required to be quoted and analyzed :-
” Section 114- 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
4Causes, 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.
6. The grounds available for filing a review application
against a judgment as set out in Order XLVII of the CPC is also
required to be discussed:
“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 a review 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. [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
5ground for the review of such judgment.]
7. 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 the knowledge of the applicant or could
not be produced by him when the 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.
8. 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. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we
resolved 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.'”
6
9. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others
reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not
selfevident and the one thathas 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. reported 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. 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
7Tuleshwar 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]
10. The error referred to under the Rule, must be apparent on
the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out.
While discussing the scope and ambit of Article 137 that
empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and in the
course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction under
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC in Lily 7 Thomas(supra), the
Apex Court held:-
“54. Article 137 empowers this court to review its
judgments subject to the provisions of any law
made by Parliament or any rules made under
Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under
Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in
8civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds
specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure which provides:
“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 a review of
judgment to the Court which passed the decree or
made the order.’ Under Order XL Rule 1 of the
Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the
ground of error apparent on the face of the record
in criminal cases. Order XL Rule 5 of the Supreme
Court Rules provides that after an application for
review has been disposed of no further application
shall be entertained in the same matter.
XXX XXX XXX
56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review
can be exercised for correction of a mistake but
not to substitute a view. Such powers can be
exercised within the limits of the statute dealing
with the exercise of power. The review cannot be
treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere
possibility of two views on the subject is not a
ground for review. Once a review petition is
dismissed no further petition of review can be
entertained. The rule of law of following the
9practice of the binding nature of the larger
Benches and not taking different views by the
Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal
strength has to be followed and practised.
However, this Court in exercise of its powers 8
under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution
and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments
have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights
of a citizen or rights created under any other
statute, can take a different view notwithstanding
the earlier judgment.
XXX XXX XXX
58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under
Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules read with
Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been
pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before
us during the arguments for the purposes of
reviewing the judgment in the case of Sarla
Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union
of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 635.
It is not the case of the petitioners that they have
discovered any new and important matter which
after the exercise of due diligence was not within
their knowledge or could not be brought to the
notice of the Court at the time of passing of the
judgment. All pleas raised before us were in fact
addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners
before the Bench which, after considering those
pleas, passed the judgment in the case of Sarla
Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union
of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 635.
We have also not found any mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record requiring a
review. Error contemplated under the rule must be
such which is apparent on the face of the record
and not an error which has to be fished out and
searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No
such error has been pointed out by the learned
10counsel appearing for the parties seeking review
of the judgment. The only arguments advanced
were that the judgment interpreting Section 494
amounted to violation of some of the fundamental
rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown
for reviewing the judgment. The words “any-other
sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1
CPC” must mean “a reason sufficient on grounds
at least analogous to those specified in the rule”
as was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram reported
in AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos. v. Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius reported in 1955 SCR
520. Error apparent on the face of the proceedings
is an error which is based on clear ignorance or
disregard of the provisions of law. in T.C. Basappa
v. T. Nagappa reported in 1955 SCR 250 this
Court held that such error is an error which is a
patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad reported in AIR
1955 SC 233, it was held:
9 “It is essential that it should be something
more than a mere error; it must be one which
must be manifest on the face of the record.
The real difficulty with reference to this
matter, however, is not so much in the
statement of the principle as in its
application to the facts of a particular case.
When does an error, cease to be mere error
and become an error apparent on the face of
the record? Learned Counsel on either side
were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by
which the boundary between the two classes
of errors could be demarcated. Mr. Pathak
for the first respondent contended on the
strength of certain observations of Chagla,
CJ in – ‘Batuk K Vyas v. Surat Borough
Municipality reported in ILR 1953 Bom 191,
11
that no error could be said to be apparent on
the face of the record if it was not self-
evident and if it required an examination or
argument to establish it. This test might
afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the
majority of cases. But there must be cases in
which even this test might break down,
because judicial opinions also differ, and an
error that might be considered by one Judge
as self-evident might not be so considered by
another. The fact is that what is an error
apparent on the face of the record cannot be
defined precisely or exhaustively, there being
an element of indefiniteness inherent in its
very nature, and it must be left to be
determined judicially on the facts of each
case. Therefore, it can safely be held that the
petitioners have not made out any case
within the meaning of Article 137 read with
Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the
judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. The petition
is misconceived and bereft of any
substance.” (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 &
Hydropower Ltd. and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651,
the Apex Court observed as follows:
10. ….In a review petition it is not open to this
Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a
different conclusion, even if that is possible.
Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to
12
impress us that the correspondence exchanged
between the parties did not support the conclusion
reached by this Court. We 10 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 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 arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not
to be confused with the appellate 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
13convert 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 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:
20.1. When the review will be
maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence,
14wasnot 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. 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,.
20.2. 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
15fully within the domain 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.”
13. 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 court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct 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
16be exercised where some mistake or error
apparent on 13 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)
14. In State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta
and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Apex Court
emphasized the requirement of the review petitioner who
approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a 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)
15. 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
17very 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 14
exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal
concerned cannot sit in appeal over its
judgment/decision”. (emphasis added)
16. 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 decisis 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 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
18miscarriage 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 fact
or 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)
17. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri
Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji reported in (1971) 3 SCC
844, the Apex 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)
18. 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 Order XLVII Rule 1, 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
19
and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of
exercising the power of review.
19. In the considered opinion of this Court, 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 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.
20. 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.”
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.
21. The Apex Court in the case of Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Thr
Secretary, Land … vs M/S. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. Has held as
under:-
“61. At the same time, there are a line of decisions
which have held that exercising power of review
for “for any other sufficient reason” must be
analogous to the two reasons mentioned in the
provision therein, namely, – 1) who from the
20discovery 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 was made; or 2) on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record. 62. The Explanation to Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC states that the fact that a
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. Thus, the
bar is for a Court to review its judgment, when a
Court superior to it has subsequently reversed or
modified a judgment on a question of law……”
22. In the light of above citations, it can be said that the scope
of review is very limited and since there seems to be no error
apparent in the impugned order passed by this Court, no
interference, therein is warranted.
23. Consequently, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and
taking into consideration the settled principal of law, no case for
reviewing the order dated 13.08.2021 passed in W.P.
No.5961/2021, is made out.
24. Accordingly, this review petition fails and is hereby
dismissed .
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
chandni/ 28/01/2025
CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
2025.01.28
17:29:21
+05'30'
[ad_1]
Source link