2018 (4) TMI 1992 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of review petition - error apparent on the face of record or not - unauthorized construction - HELD THAT - The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order under review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order in order to entertain the present review application - this Review Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review petition filed against the order directing action on unauthorized construction.
2. Violation of sanctioned plan in construction.
3. Application of Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
4. Consideration of review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.
5. Legal principles governing review petitions.

Issue 1: Review petition against unauthorized construction order
The judgment involves a review petition filed against an order directing action on unauthorized construction. The writ petitioner sought action against the 7th respondent's unauthorized construction, alleging violations of the sanctioned plan. The court initially allowed the writ petition, ordering the demolition of the unauthorized construction.

Issue 2: Violation of sanctioned plan in construction
The construction by the 7th respondent was found to be in violation of the sanctioned plan. The respondent had obtained approval only for the ground floor and first floor, while additional construction beyond the first floor and in the basement lacked planning approval. The court emphasized that mere application for additional floors did not grant permission for construction in violation of the plan.

Issue 3: Application of Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920
The review petitioner contended that sections of the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 applied even in cases of reconstruction, and the pending civil suit impacted the writ petition. However, the court held that the Act did not apply and that the pending suit did not preclude the writ petition.

Issue 4: Consideration of review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.
The court outlined the requirements for a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It highlighted the need for new evidence, an error on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons to entertain a review. The court clarified that a review aims to correct errors, not substitute views, and cannot disturb the finality of a judgment without apparent error.

Issue 5: Legal principles governing review petitions
The judgment discussed legal principles governing review petitions, emphasizing that review is not an appeal and must be confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Citing precedents, the court reiterated that an erroneous decision alone does not warrant a review unless there is a clear error on the face of the order. The court dismissed the review petition, finding no error apparent on the face of the original order, thus upholding the decision on the unauthorized construction.