1997 (10) TMI 369 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Article 181 or Article 182 of the Limitation Act would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case? Held that - With a view to do complete justice between the parties, it appears appropriate to us to direct that the Executing Court shall, while deciding the Executing Application on merits also consider this aspect and return a finding as to when the cause of action accrued to the decree holder and the consider the question as to which Article of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case.

Summary

Issues:
Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Interpretation of decree and Limitation Act; Error apparent on the face of the record; Scope of review proceedings; Setting aside of impugned order; Consideration of Limitation Act application.

Review Jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:
The Supreme Court analyzed a case where a review petition challenged the correctness of a judgment without pointing out any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that review proceedings must strictly adhere to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It cited precedents to highlight that a review is not an appeal in disguise and can only be sought for patent errors. The Court found that the judge had overstepped the jurisdiction by setting aside the previous judgment without identifying an error on the face of the record.

Interpretation of Decree and Limitation Act:
The case involved a decree with both mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. The Court noted that the lower court failed to determine when the alleged breach of the decree occurred, a crucial factor in deciding the applicable article of the Limitation Act. The Court directed the Executing Court to consider this aspect while deciding the execution application on merits, without being influenced by previous orders.

Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The Supreme Court emphasized that an error justifying review must be self-evident and not require a lengthy process of reasoning to detect. It clarified that a review petition cannot be a means to re-hear and correct an erroneous decision. The Court held that the judge in this case had incorrectly treated the review as an appeal and had not identified any error apparent on the face of the record.

Scope of Review Proceedings:
The Court reiterated that review proceedings are limited to the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It cited previous judgments to emphasize that review petitions are not avenues for challenging decisions based on merits but only for correcting patent errors. The Court found that the judge had exceeded the permissible scope of review jurisdiction by setting aside the previous judgment without a clear error on record.

Setting Aside of Impugned Order:
The Supreme Court concluded that the impugned order, which set aside the previous judgment, could not be sustained due to the lack of a clear error justifying a review. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It also noted that the remand order automatically revived but highlighted that further considerations were necessary to ensure complete justice between the parties.

Consideration of Limitation Act Application:
The Court directed the Executing Court to determine the date of the alleged breach of the decree and consider which article of the Limitation Act applies to the case without being influenced by previous orders. It emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment of all issues on merits and instructed the Executing Court to expedite the execution application. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.