2005 (2) TMI 914 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the review application.
2. Grounds for review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
3. Whether new grounds can be raised in a review application that were not argued in the original appeal.
4. The role of different counsel in filing a review application.
5. Examination of errors apparent on the face of the record.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Review Application:
The review application was filed by a different counsel than the one who argued the original matter, which is generally impermissible as per the Supreme Court's decision in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar. The court expressed doubts about the maintainability of the review petition itself.

2. Grounds for Review Under Section 114 Read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:
The limitations for entertaining a review petition are clearly prescribed. The party must show that it has discovered new and important matter or evidence that was not within its knowledge or could not be produced at the time of the original decree. Alternatively, the review can be based on some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.

3. Whether New Grounds Can Be Raised in a Review Application:
The court examined whether the grounds raised in the review application were argued in the original appeal. It was found that these grounds were not raised earlier, and there was no record to show that they were agitated before the appeal court. The court emphasized that a review petition cannot be entertained on grounds not urged at the time of the original hearing.

4. The Role of Different Counsel in Filing a Review Application:
It was highlighted that the review application was filed by a different counsel, which is generally not permissible. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, reinforcing that a different counsel cannot argue a review petition if they did not argue the initial petition.

5. Examination of Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The court discussed what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. An error must be obvious and not require elaborate argument to be identified. The court referenced several judgments to explain that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be entertained merely because a different view is possible. The purpose of review is to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriages of justice, not to re-argue the case.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the grounds raised in the review petition were not argued in the original appeal, and no sufficient reason was provided for this omission. There was no error apparent on the face of the record, and the review petition did not meet the criteria set out in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Consequently, the review petition was found to be totally misconceived and was rejected.