2024 (7) TMI 811 - SC - Indian Laws

Review jurisdiction - consideration of review petitioners as persons aggrieved, on the basis of the pleadings in the RPs - liberty to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation 2014 (1) TMI 1643 - SUPREME COURT - survival of liberty after the decision in Manoharlal 2020 (3) TMI 1310 - SUPREME COURT - Explanation in Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC. Whether the last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra 3-Judge grants liberty to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation? - If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, did such liberty survive after the decision in Manoharlal? - HELD THAT - The first reason is that the submission of a liberty being granted by Shailendra 3-Judge makes it abundantly clear that but for such liberty , the review petitioners would not have even thought of applying for review since the law on the point was no longer res integra. It is, therefore, an admission on their part that the judgments and orders under review, as on the dates they were delivered/made, were neither erroneous (which is a possible ground for appeal, if an appeal were allowed by law) nor suffering from any error apparent on the face of the record (a possible ground for review). Therefore, merely based on Shailendra 3-Judge , a subsequent event, the review jurisdiction of this Court which is a limited jurisdiction could not have been invoked. In paragraph 365 of Manoharlal 5-Judge, lapse itself, it has been held by the Constitution Bench that Shailendra 3-Judge did not have the occasion to consider certain aspects for which that decision cannot prevail. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, based on such statement, contended that Shailendra 3-Judge stands overruled. This submission has been disputed by learned senior counsel for the review petitioners. According to them, Shailendra 3-Judge has not been expressly overruled; only because of aspects referred to in paragraph 365 and the discussion preceding, it ceases to be a precedent. Can the RPs be held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis- -vis Manoharlal? - HELD THAT - No review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based. Notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII of the CPC. Can the review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the RPs, be considered persons aggrieved? - HELD THAT - The review petitioners have raised GROUNDS without even averring what was pleaded in their counter affidavits filed before the High Court and what were the defences raised which, because of non-consideration by this Court, could be said to amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The RPs are silent as to on which specific ground referrable to Rule 1 of Order XLVII the review has been asked for. Even then, having considered such GROUNDS , we are of the considered opinion that the judgments/orders under review do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record - the question answered against the review petitioners. Reference disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Review Petitions (RPs) based on the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation decision.
2. Interpretation of the term "liberty" granted in Shailendra [3-Judge] decision.
3. Application of the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC.
4. Whether the RPs can be maintained on other grounds.
5. Maintainability of miscellaneous applications seeking recall of orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Review Petitions (RPs) Based on Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation Decision:
The review petitioners argued that the specific overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and the recall of its decision by Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) should allow for the maintainability of the RPs. However, the Court held that subsequent overruling of a decision does not constitute a ground for review under Order XLVII of the CPC. The Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC, clearly rules out the possibility of review based on a subsequent change in law. The Court emphasized that the statutory provision must be adhered to, and the Explanation inserted by the legislature cannot be ignored.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Liberty" Granted in Shailendra [3-Judge] Decision:
The review petitioners contended that paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] (supra) granted them 'liberty' to file for review. The Court interpreted this paragraph to mean that only pending review petitions at the time of the Shailendra decision could be entertained, not new ones. The Court clarified that the term "open to be reviewed in appropriate cases" did not provide a carte blanche to file new review petitions based on the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).

3. Application of the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC:
The Court held that the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC, which states that a subsequent change in law cannot be a ground for review, is binding. This statutory provision was inserted to prevent indefinite reopening of cases and to ensure finality in litigation. The Court reiterated that any review based on a subsequent overruling of a decision is not maintainable.

4. Whether the RPs Can Be Maintained on Other Grounds:
The Court examined the other grounds raised in the RPs and found them to be factual in nature, without any specific reference to errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that the judgments/orders under review did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and thus, the RPs could not be maintained on these other grounds.

5. Maintainability of Miscellaneous Applications Seeking Recall of Orders:
The Court held that miscellaneous applications seeking recall of orders, which were essentially in the nature of review petitions, were not maintainable. The Court emphasized that such applications could not be used to bypass the statutory provisions governing review petitions. The principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly was applied to reject these applications.

Conclusion:
The Court answered all the questions in the negative, except for question (a), which was partly negative and partly affirmative. The Court concurred with the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble companion Judge on the said Division Bench and dismissed the RPs and miscellaneous applications. However, the Court extended the time limit for initiating fresh acquisition proceedings by one year, starting from 1st August 2024, and provided specific directions to ensure compliance with the 2013 Act, while also invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. The Court also remanded certain cases involving subsequent purchasers to the High Court for fact-finding inquiries to ascertain the rightful claimants for compensation.