9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1503 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of review petition - Delay in filing review/recall applications - object and purpose of filing these review petitions is to seek review of the judgment impugned in the review petitions and for rehearing of the Special Leave Petitions or the Civil Appeals - scope of review as provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - whether, on the basis of a subsequent decision, on a pure question of law, the earlier decisions arrived at, on the basis of law as it was, could now be recalled at the instance of one of the parties to the earlier decisions? HELD THAT - When a review application is filed by an aggrieved party, the same can be dismissed ex parte without issuing notice to the other side on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to call upon the opposite party to show cause as to why review should not be granted. If notice is issued to the other side, then, after hearing both sides, it is necessary to consider whether the review petition ought to be allowed or rejected. It is at that stage the maintainability of the review petition would also have to be considered such as if there is a bar to the very maintainability of the review petition having regard to the scope to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Then, the review petition has to be dismissed at that stage itself. But, if the Court is convinced that there is ground for reviewing the order or judgment impugned, then the review petition has to be allowed by recalling the orders sought to be reviewed. Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the S.C. Rules, 2013 made by virtue of Article 145 of the Constitution of India states that, in any civil case, review lies on any of the grounds stated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the scope and power to review a judgment or order by the Supreme Court is restricted to the contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Further, though the power to review is conferred by the Constitution and is therefore a Constitutional power, that power is circumscribed by the CPC and S.C. Rules, 2013. On a consideration of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is noted that there are three main grounds referred to above on which a review of a decree or order could be sought by an aggrieved person. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners herein, on the expression sufficient reason so as to contend that since Pune Municipal Corporation was decided contrary to the intent and purport of Section 24(2) of L.A. Act, 2013 and the same has been overruled by a Larger Bench comprising of five Judges in Indore Development Authority, there is sufficient reason to review all judgments passed by this Court following Pune Municipal Corporation. Hence, the present review petitions have been filed although there may be a delay in doing so. Applying the Explanation to the facts of the present case, it was contended that in Indore Development Authority, the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled on a pure question of law and further, all other judgments following Pune Municipal Corporation also stood overruled. But the overruling of the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation by a subsequent decision of a Larger Bench of five Judges in Indore Development Authority is not a ground for review and recall of the very decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars the review petition being entertained in the instant cases. Hence, in these cases, the review petitions may have to be rejected/dismissed. The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is in the nature of an exception to the expression for any other sufficient reason . This would mean that if, in the mind of a Court there is a sufficient reason for the review of a judgment, it cannot be on the ground/reason covered in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the circumstances mentioned in the Explanation would be an exception and is outside the scope and ambit of for any other sufficient reason - 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. As far as this Court is concerned, a superior Court would mean a Larger Bench of this Court which would pass a judgment or order contrary to the judgments sought to be reviewed. Having regard to the scope and ambit of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, these review petitions are not maintainable and the judgment and the orders of this Court ought not be reviewed and the review petitions are liable to be dismissed. The review petitions are disposed of.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing review/recall applications. 2. Review of orders based on the overruling of the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment by the Indore Development Authority judgment. 3. Applicability of the principle of res judicata and the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 4. Maintainability of review petitions under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 5. Public interest and the impact on land acquisition proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Review/Recall Applications: The Court condoned the delay in filing the respective review/recall applications, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Review of Orders Based on Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation Judgment: The applications were filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority to review and recall orders passed in respective Civil Appeals, which were dismissed based on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. The applicants contended that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & others, which held that all decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation were also overruled. 3. Applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata and Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: The respondents argued that change in law due to a subsequent decision cannot be a ground for review and that the settled position inter-parties may not be affected. They emphasized that the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars review on the ground that a subsequent decision has reversed or modified the earlier decision. The Court noted that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority specifically overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and all decisions following it, indicating that such decisions are open to review. 4. Maintainability of Review Petitions under Article 137 of the Constitution and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: The Court discussed that under Article 137, the Supreme Court has the power to review its decisions, subject to any law made by Parliament or rules under Article 145. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC allows review on grounds of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The Court found that the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation by Indore Development Authority constituted a sufficient reason for review, despite the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 5. Public Interest and Impact on Land Acquisition Proceedings: The Court considered the larger public interest, noting that many lands acquired for public purposes were declared lapsed due to the erroneous interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation. Allowing the review applications would enable the authorities to retain possession of lands already utilized for public purposes and avoid returning them to original landowners. Conclusion: The review applications were allowed, and the orders in the respective Civil Appeals were recalled. The Civil Appeals were restored to their original files for reconsideration in light of the Indore Development Authority judgment. The Court emphasized that this decision was made in the larger public interest and did not express any opinion on the merits of the cases. The Contempt Petition related to one of the Civil Appeals was disposed of accordingly.
|
