9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time when the decree was passed or order made; (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason. The Apex Court has held that rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason - In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner in fact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review. There are no reason to review the order - review petition dismissed. - R.P. No.1256/2019, R.P. No.1257/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - Virender Singh, J. ORDER VIRENDER SINGH, J. Parties through their counsel. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the review petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of the Review Petition No.1256/2019 are narrated hereunder. Present review petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 22.04.2019 passed in CEA No.117/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty simply by inserting a symbol or and etc, there is no evidence on record to consider both the companies as independent entities, therefore, the direction of the CESTAT to take into account lorry receipts only in respect of M/s R S Companies is incorrect. While passing the impugned order this Court has not taken into consideration this fact, therefore, the order needs review. It is prayed that the CEA be restored to its original number and the same be heard and decided on the basis of proposed substantial questions of law. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have gone through the record as well as the impugned order passed earlier. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78 in paragraph 13 and 20 has held as under :- 13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it may make such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 2 CPC. This question arose in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 and was irrelevant so far as Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally, the High Court erred in holding that no prayer for leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was made in the plaint in Title Suit No. 201 of 1985. The claim of oral agreement dated 19-8-1982 is mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, and at the end of the plaint it has been noted that the right to institute the suit for specific performance was reserved. That being so, the High Court has erroneously held about infraction of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This was not a case where Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has any application. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has held that rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner in fact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr ., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 in paragraphs 21, 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier. In the aforesaid case the Apex Court has held that a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima-facie visible and does not require any detail examination. In the present case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not pass any specific order, the application for review filed by the respondent was on the merit of the judgment. The relevant grounds of review which have been placed before us relate to: (i) Unconditional withdrawal of some amount by one of the creditors of the defendant as also the defendant himself. (ii) The defendant's application before the executing court that he was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed on receipt of amount in cash and the said admission allegedly was not brought to the notice of the court. (iii) While holding that there was no agreement to reduce the sale consideration, the High Court had ignored the fact that it was an admitted case of the parties, as stipulated in the contract, that the defendants would get the premises vacated from the tenants within three months. (iv) The appellant had prayed for an alternative relief viz. that he was ready to get the decree for specific performance of contract by paying ₹ 1,15,000. The court did not consider the evidence of DWs 1 to 6 in their proper perspective. (v) The cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he court, which is as under: The law on the subject-exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) 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. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
