2022 (8) TMI 1337 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of second review petition - first set of review petitions were not satisfied - core argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the High Court ought not to have entertained successive review petitions filed by the respondents when they could not demonstrate emergence of any new facts or point out any error apparent on the face of the record for allowing the review applications must be put to test by examining the relevant provisions of law that governs review jurisdiction. HELD 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. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others 1980 (7) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT this 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. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VERSUS SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS 1997 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT stating that an error that is not self- evident 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 this Court 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. It has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court s jurisdiction of review is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. Even otherwise 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. The second set of review petitions were nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court and ought to have been rejected by the High Court as not maintainable without having gone into the merits of the matter - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the review petitions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
2. Discovery of new and important evidence.
3. Error apparent on the face of the record.
4. Successive review petitions and their permissibility.
5. The validity of the surrender proceedings of protected tenancy rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Review Petitions:
The appellant argued that the review petitions filed by the respondents did not satisfy any of the conditions for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The core argument was that the High Court should not have entertained successive review petitions when no new facts or errors apparent on the face of the record were demonstrated. The Supreme Court reiterated that a review application is maintainable only on the discovery of new and important matters or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

2. Discovery of New and Important Evidence:
The respondents claimed that they had discovered genuine documents showing the surrender of tenancy rights, which they presented in the second set of review petitions. However, the Supreme Court found that the respondents had previously filed photocopies of these documents and could have obtained certified copies earlier. The Court emphasized that the respondents failed to demonstrate that the documents were unknown to them or could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.

3. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The appellant contended that the High Court erroneously treated the review petitions as independent appeals, which is impermissible. The Supreme Court highlighted that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not one that requires detailed examination or reasoning. The Court found no such error in the High Court's judgment and noted that the respondents were essentially rearguing points already considered and rejected.

4. Successive Review Petitions:
The appellant argued that successive review petitions are barred, especially when no new grounds are presented. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the respondents had multiple opportunities to present their evidence but failed to do so. The Court emphasized that successive review petitions are impermissible unless new and compelling evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.

5. Validity of the Surrender Proceedings:
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the surrender proceedings of protected tenancy rights. The High Court had previously found that the surrender proceedings were manipulated and ante-dated. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the landlord's actions during land ceiling proceedings contradicted the claim of surrender. The Court found that the respondents' attempts to introduce new evidence were an abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment dated 29th April 2022, and restored the common judgment and order dated 9th July 2013. The Court concluded that the second set of review petitions filed by the respondents were not maintainable and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The parties were left to bear their own expenses.

← Previous Next →