2024 (10) TMI 87 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - Writ court power of review of its order - whether there is an error apparent on the face of record to review the order 2018 (5) TMI 639 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ? - HELD THAT - Though the provisions of the CPC under Order 47 Rule 1 are not applicable to review the order passed in the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet, the High Court being court of record, power of review inheres in the court of plenary jurisdiction exercisable by this Court to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors, but that power ought not be treated as unlimited or unabridged, but they are to be invoked on the grounds analogous to the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, namely; (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which the party seeking the review could not produce at the time when the earlier order sought to be reviewed was made, despite exercise of due diligence, (ii) existence of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and (iii) existence of any analogous ground. Whether the new documents which were not part of the writ petition can be considered in the review jurisdiction and whether that would constitute an error apparent on the face of record warranting review jurisdiction? - Admittedly, the application for taking additional documents on record was filed by the review petitioners before the writ appellate court on 21-10-2022 and no reason has been assigned as to why documents 'A' to 'R' filed before the writ appellate court, could not be filed before the writ court particularly when the return was filed by the review petitioners before the writ court on 11-12-2017. It is not the case of the review petitioners that these documents were not available to them when the return was filed and writ petition was heard. The application for taking additional documents on record filed before the writ appellate court is conspicuously silent in this regard and the review petitioners were obliged to state in the said application that these documents could not be filed despite due diligence. As such, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the review petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, in limine

Summary

Issues: Review of order passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the writ court has the power of review of its order?

The judgment discusses the power of review of orders passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It cites the case law of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab and A.T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma to establish that the High Court, as a court of record, has inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct errors. The judgment emphasizes that while Order 47 of the CPC is not directly applicable to the writ jurisdiction, the High Court can exercise review jurisdiction based on specific grounds such as discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous grounds. The court highlights that the power of review is not unlimited and should be invoked judiciously to prevent grave errors or miscarriage of justice.

Issue 2: Whether new documents not part of the writ petition can be considered in the review jurisdiction?

The judgment delves into the specific case where the review petitioners sought to introduce additional documents that were not part of the original writ petition. The court notes that the petitioners failed to provide a valid reason for not filing these documents earlier, despite them being available at the time of the initial proceedings. The court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction in this case. The judgment emphasizes the importance of due diligence in presenting all relevant documents during the initial proceedings and highlights that the review jurisdiction should not be used to rectify omissions or errors that could have been addressed earlier. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the scope of review jurisdiction in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for specific grounds to invoke review and the importance of diligence in presenting all relevant materials during the initial proceedings.