9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal Vs. Palani Roman [ 2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta [ 2008 (6) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned ITAT has categorically recorded in the order that no substantial arguments have been advanced in support of the cross objection by the assessee, therefore, the appeals have been dismissed for the Assessment Year - 2011 - 12, 2012 - 13 and 2013 - 14. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that this Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Even the ITAT has taken into consideration the cross objection. Since no arguments were advanced in support, the ITAT had no other option but to dismiss the appeal. In the appeal, an exhaustive order has been passed and it has been held that there is no substantial question of law which arises for consideration. No error apparent error on record can be seen so as to invoke the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 06. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:- Review :- Subject as aforesaid, any person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 09. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562 , The Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: 12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674 , this Court observed : A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. (emphasis added) 10. In Parsion Devi and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in disguise . [emphasis added] 11. The error referred to under the Rule, must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. While discussing the scope and ambit of Article 137 that empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and in the course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC in Lily Thomas(supra) , the Apex Court held:- 54. Article 137 empowers this court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides: 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All pleas raised before us were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the judgment in the case of Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 635 . We have also not found any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. 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. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words any-other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC must mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule as was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram reported in AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power Ltd. and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651 , the Apex Court observed as follows: 10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise. (emphasis added) 13. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words any other sufficient reason has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki AIR 1922 PC 112 , and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 520 to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule . The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese Iron Ores Ltd. Ors reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337 ,. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: - (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not within his knowledge and held thus: 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 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 earlier. (emphasis added) 17. In the captioned judgment, the term mistake or error apparent has been discussed in the following words: 22. The term mistake or error apparent by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. (emphasis added) 20. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 896 , citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, the Apex Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review. 21. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal Vs. Palani Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
