9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 1394 - SC - Indian LawsReview jurisdiction by the High Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified in allowing the review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and setting aside the reasoned judgment and order passed in main writ petition? - HELD THAT - From the reasoning given by the High Court it appears that according to the High Court the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2010 was erroneous. While passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has observed and considered the Survey Report dated 12.12.2007 which was already dealt with by the High Court while deciding the main writ petition and the High Court discarded and/or not considered the Survey Report dated 12.12.2007. Once the Survey Report dated 12.12.2007 fell for consideration before the High Court while deciding the main writ petition thereafter the same could not have been considered again by the High Court while deciding the review application. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court has decided the review application as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010 which is wholly impermissible while considering the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC. The High Court has considered the review application as if it was an appeal against the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2010. As observed hereinabove the same is wholly impermissible while deciding the review application. Even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous the same cannot be a ground to review the same in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Conclusion - In the present case while allowing the review application the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction and has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the review application and setting aside the order dated 03.03.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2010 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The related writ petitions and contempt petition were remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Specifically, the issues include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework governing the review jurisdiction is primarily encapsulated in Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC. The precedents considered include the Supreme Court's decisions in Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra and Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. Assam SEB, which outline the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court emphasized that review proceedings are not an appeal and must be confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The power of review is intended for correcting a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, not for substituting a view or rehearing the matter. The Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively rehearing the case and substituting its judgment for the original decision. Key Evidence and Findings The High Court's decision to allow the review was based on its reconsideration of the Survey Report dated 12.12.2007, which had already been evaluated in the original writ petition. The Supreme Court noted that this constituted an impermissible reevaluation of evidence. Application of Law to Facts The Supreme Court applied the principles from the cited precedents to determine that the High Court had improperly exercised its review jurisdiction. The review was granted on the grounds that the original decision was erroneous, which is not a valid basis for review under the established legal framework. Treatment of Competing Arguments The appellant argued that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by treating the review as an appeal. The respondent contended that the original decision was based on fraudulent documents and thus justified a review. The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Conclusions The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to allow the review application and set aside the original judgment was unsustainable. The review jurisdiction was exercised improperly, as the High Court essentially conducted a rehearing of the case. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning "Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC." "An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC." Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision to allow the review application and restored the original judgment dated 03.03.2017. The related writ petitions and contempt petition were remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
|
