1995 (5) TMI 295 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Review of judgment based on alleged error in observation regarding multiple inspection petitions, Jurisdiction of transferee court to hear review application, Applicability of Rule 5 of Order 47 of CPC, Maintainability of review application when appeal is available, Permissibility of review based on alleged error in judgment.

Analysis:
The case involved a review application seeking to challenge a judgment passed by a learned Judge in a revision application. The main contention of the petitioners was that the observation made by the Judge regarding two inspection petitions being on different points was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners argued that the judgment should be reviewed based on this alleged error.

The petitioners further argued that the review matter was assigned to the current Court due to the unavailability of the original Judge who passed the judgment. They relied on legal precedents to support the argument that the transferee Court had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the review application in such circumstances.

In response, the opposite party contended that Rule 5 of Order 47 of the CPC would bar any other Judge from hearing the review application if the Judge who passed the original judgment was available. They cited a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court to support their argument regarding the interpretation of the rule.

Moreover, the opposite party argued that since an appeal was available under Section 109 of the CPC and Article 133 of the Constitution, the review application was not maintainable. They referred to a Supreme Court decision to emphasize that a review should not be entertained when an appeal is the appropriate remedy.

Additionally, the opposite party contended that a review was not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit. They cited a single Bench decision of the Court to support this argument.

After hearing both parties, the Court held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the review application since the original Judge was no longer available due to superannuation. The Court rejected the review application, stating that the judgment in question was appealable, and the review was not maintainable based on the arguments presented by the parties. The Court found no merit in the review application and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.