9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CPC, 1908. Review jurisdiction is not a tool for the litigious or the disgruntled, it is a mechanism for safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process, for ensuring that justice remains blind to all but the merits of the case. Wielding the power of review jurisdiction carries a weighty burden one that demands unyielding diligence and meticulousness. Courts must resist the siren call of extraneous influences or the temptation to revisit contentious issues - the review jurisdiction is not a weapon to be wielded recklessly but a shield to safeguard the sanctity of the legal process. The review jurisdiction is a solemn duty bestowed upon the High Courts to rectify errors that may have crept into their judgments. It is not an avenue for re-argument or a platform for dissatisfied litigants to reiterate their grievances. Instead, it serves as a bulwark against miscarriage of justice, providing a mechanism for the correction of judicial fallibility. Judges, like all human beings, are liable to err. Thus, review jurisdiction stands as a sentinel against the tyranny of erroneous judgments, upholding the integrity of the judicial process. Coming to the merits of the instant review, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also for the purchase of plant and machinery, apparatus and equipment, the same ought to have been included in the 'Fixed Capital Investment' and the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the said amount merely on the ground that the amount has been allowed as MODVAT under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CEA, 1944). Other questions were also raised with regard to MODVAT allowed by the excise department. b. The aforesaid question was answered by this Court vide its order dated February 15, 2010 in favour of the Revisionist. c. Against the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court, the Respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. d. The aforesaid Special Leave Petition was dismissed as not pressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated September 9, 2010. e. The Respondent filed the instant review application before this Court assailing the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by this Court. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT 5. Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has made the following submissions: i. The rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment and, therefore, the petitioner would like to file a review application before the High Court". Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as 'not pressed'. ii. In view of the aforesaid liberty, the Respondent has filed the instant review petition. However, instead of pointing out as to which 'main question of law' has not been dealt with by this Court in the main judgment dated February 15, 2010, the Respondent has taken a completely different stand in the instant review application. It has been averred that, "the relevant law which could not be pointed out at the time of argument before this Hon'ble Court was the law laid down by the Apex Court". Further, the Respondent also admits that the question of law has been answered by this Court. Thus, the very basis on which liberty was sought from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to file review petition stands obliterated by the averments of the Respondent itself. iii. The review petition cannot be said to be maintainable on the basis of the sole ground taken by the Respondent. It is well settled that failure to place judgments cannot be a ground for review. Reference in this regard is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court espoused that the power under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 does not allow for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." Relevant paragraphs are extracted below: "7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174] (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined: "What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case 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 revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." (Emphasis Added) 15. In the cauldron of litigation, where passions run high and stakes are higher still, the temptation to misuse review jurisdiction may be great. Yet, it is a temptation that must be resisted at all costs, for to succumb to it would be to betray the very essence of justice itself. Review jurisdiction is not a tool for the litigious or the disgruntled, it is a mechanism for safeguarding the integrity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade the following pertinent observations : "3. … It is true … there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." 15. A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of a judgment or an orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137] were also noted : '17. … An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.' 18. It is also pertinent to mention the observations of this Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] . Relying upon the judgments in Aribam [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] and Meera Bhanja [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735] , '17. The power of a civil court to review its judgment/ decision is traceable in Section 114CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1CPC, which reads as under: "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 could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order." ' 8. An application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review is also not an appeal in disguise. 9. What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the proceedings has been dealt with and considered by this Court in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440] . It is held that such an error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104 : AIR 1955 SC 233] , it is observed as under : (SCC p. 244, para 23) "23. … It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error, and become an error apparent on the face of the record? The learned counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated." 18. Nobody is perfect. This timeless adage resonates deeply within the realm of the judiciary, where judges, thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iligent inquiry, remained elusive to the court's purview. This requirement embodies the essence of due diligence, mandating not merely a cursory glance but a thorough excavation into the depths of legal enquiry. Review jurisdiction is not to be misconstrued as a second bite at the proverbial apple, granting aggrieved parties an opportunity to rehash matters already adjudicated upon. In review jurisdiction, courts act as third umpires. Their authority is circumscribed by the confines of the record before them, limiting their purview to errors glaringly evident on the face of record. Should the pursuit of rectifying an alleged error necessitate a deeper and thorough examination, it stands to reason that such an error cannot be deemed 'apparent' in the truest sense. 21. Coming to the merits of the instant review, the ground taken by the Respondent that important judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme could not be submitted before this Court, does not merit the exercise of the power of review since the Respondent failed to establish that despite exercise of proper due diligence, the aforesaid judgments could not be brought to light. In any case, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dokka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire approach of the learned Single Judge is not correct in law." 22. Mere failure to cite a judgment does not, in and of itself, render the original judgment flawed. Review jurisdiction is not a panacea for addressing every perceived deficiency or oversight in the original judgment; rather it is a narrow avenue reserved for rectifying errors glaringly evident on the face of the record. Failure to cite a particular judgment does not automatically invalidate the reasoning or merit of the decision under question. 23. What is also surprising to me is that although the ground taken by the Respondent to withdraw their Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was liberty to approach this Court since as per them the main question of law was not decided by this Court in its judgment on February 15, 2010, the said ground does not find any mention in the instant review application. The failure to articulate consistent grounds for seeking review calls into question the bona fides of the Respondent's application. One would expect that if a significant aspect of the case was left unaddressed in a prior judgment, as alleged by the Respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
