9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax). This Court has upheld the order passed by the Tribunal as the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit as provided under Section 129(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 has not been fulfilled. The other important aspect of the case is that in another connected matter also similar order has been passed dismissing the appeal. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. 02-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 order thereon as it thinks fit . The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason . The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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. 03-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 and 35 has held as under:- 21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient 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 petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on merits. 04-The Apex Court again dealing with the scope of interference and limitation of review in the case of Inderchand Jain (dead) Through LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 in paragraphs 7, 22, 24, 29, 31 and 33 has held as under :- 7. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code ) provides for a substantive power of review by a civil court and consequently by the appellate courts. The words subject as aforesaid occurring in Section 114 of the Code mean subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed as appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 court did not consider that the property could not be restored back to the appellant-defendant and as such the court should have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction. 24. An appeal is a continuation of the suit. Any decision taken by the appellate court would relate back, unless a contrary intention is shown, to the date of institution of the suit. There cannot be any doubt that the appellate court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction would be entitled to take into consideration the subsequent events for the purpose of moulding the relief as envisaged under Order 7 Rule 7 read with Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same shall, however, not mean that the court would proceed to do so in a review application despite holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to grant of a decree for specific performance of contract. 29. Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code stipulates that filing of an appeal would not amount to automat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. The Apex Court while dealing with the scope of review has held that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in light of provisions as contained U/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 05-The Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 in paragraphs 12 and 26 has held as under :- 12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
