9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be dealt with in accordance with law. A reasonable period can be spent for disposal of the review, but definitely not four years. We request the High Courts not to keep the applications for review pending as that is likely to delay the matter in every court and also embolden the likes of the Petitioner to take a stand intelligently depicting the same in the application for condonation of delay. SLP dismissed. - Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. of 2017 (CC 4339/2017) - - - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - Dipak Misra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar , JJ. For the Appellant : Renjith B. Marar , Lakshmi N. Kaimal , Lakshmeesh S. Kamath , T.K. Babu and Anubhav Anand Pandey , Advs. JUDGMENT Dipak Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y observing that an effort has been made to seek review of the main judgment as if the High Court was expected to exercise appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an application for review. 5. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: 1. Application for review of judgment. -(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the application for review which was kept pending for a span of four years. 11. An application for review, regard being had to its limited scope, has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Though we do not intend to fix any time limit, it has to be the duty of the Registry of every High Court to place the matter before the concerned Judge/Bench so that the review application can be dealt with in quite promptitude. If a notice is required to be issued to the opposite party in the application for review, a specific date can be given on which day the matter can be dealt with in accordance with law. A reasonable period can be spent for disposal of the review, but definitely not four years. We are compelled to say so as the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ize cleverness in its conventional sense. We say no more in this regard. 13. We request the High Courts not to keep the applications for review pending as that is likely to delay the matter in every court and also embolden the likes of the Petitioner to take a stand intelligently depicting the same in the application for condonation of delay. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of each of the High Courts so that it can be placed before the learned Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice of the High Court to do the needful in the matter. 15. As earlier indicated, the special leave petition has to pave the path of dismissal and accordingly it stands dismissed, both on the ground of delay, as well as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
