9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 1 stood allowed. Being aggrieved, applicant filed the special appeal, which stood dismissed by the aforesaid judgment and order. Hence this review application. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the materials available on record. 4. This review application has been filed not by the counsel who had argued the matter earlier, but by a different counsel which is not generally permissible in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr AIR1997SC1005 . Thus, we are very much doubtful regarding the maintainability of the review petition itself. 5. Shri H.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has raised large number of issues and tried to persuade the Court that the matter requires to be heard de-novo. As the Court while deciding the appeal failed to take into consideration issues involved in the appeal. In the review application it has been urged as under:- (a) The learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench failed to appreciate that the order of appointment of respondent No. 1 Vinod Shanker Tiwari dated 26/6/1993 was a forged document. (b) The Court f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review, it must be apparent on the face of record and if a party files an application on the ground of 'some other sufficient reason' it has to satisfy that the said sufficient reason is analogous to the other conditions mentioned in the said rule i.e. discovery of new and important matter or evidence which it could not discover with due diligence or it was not within his knowledge and, thus, could not produce at the initial stage. Apparent error on the face of record has been explained to include failure to apply the law of limitation to the facts found by the Court or failure to consider a particular provision of a statute or a part thereof or a statutory provision has been applied though it was not in operation. Review is permissible if there is an error of procedure apparent on the face of the record e.g. the judgment is delivered without notice to the parties, or judgment does not effectively deal with or determine any important issue in the case though argued by the parties. There may be merely a smoke-line demarketing an error simplicitor from the error apparent on the face of record. But there cannot be a ground for entertaining the review in the former case. Suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal and Anr. (1999)IILLJ1413SC . 14. A Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in D. Nalagarh Dehati Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., Nalagarh v. Beli Ram , considered the scope of review and held that not considering an existing judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be a ground of review and for the same it placed reliance upon the judgments of the Privy Council in Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma Rao v. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao (1900) 27 IA 197 (PC), wherein it was held that the purpose of review, inter alia, is to correct an apparent error which should not have been there when the judgment was given. The Court also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Federal Court in Sir Hari Sankar Pal and Anr. v. Anath Nath Mitter and Ors., 1949 FC 106 wherein it was held as under:- ......the error could not be one apparent on the face of record or even analogous to it. When, however, the Court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to a provision of law which gives it jurisdiction to act in a particular way, that may amount to an error analogous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment. A remedy by way of an application for review is entirely misconceived and if a Court entertained the application for review then it has totally exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the review merely because it takes a different view in construction of the document. 20. In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3737, the Hon'ble Apex Court deprecated the practice of filing review application observing that review, by no means, is an appeal in disguise and it cannot be entertained even if application has been filed for clarification, modification or review of the judgment and order finally passed for the reason that a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bye-pass the procedure prescribed for hearing a review application. The Court also rejected the argument that review application should be entertained to do justice in the case, observing as under:- The words 'justice' and 'injustice', in our view,. are sometimes loosely used and have different meanings to different persons, particularly to those arrayed on opposite sides..... Justice Cardozo said, The Web is tangled and obscure, shot through with a multitude of shades and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a similar situation in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak and Anr. 1982CriLJ1581 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Justice cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation. (Per Somasunderan v. Subramanian AIR 1926 PC 136). We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgments as to what transpired in the court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statement at the Bar or by affidavit or other evidence..... If a party thinks that the happening in the court had wrongly been recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the mind of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. (Vide Madhusudan v. Chandrabeti AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the only way to have the record correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All. 440; and Kamla Prasad v. Kunj Behari 1920 (5) Pat.L.J. 340). 32. In Mst. Iyesha Bai and Ors. v. Daleep Singh, the Court held that unless the party filing the review satisfies the Court that they have discovered a new matter which was not possible for it to discover by due diligence, the review is not maintainable and if the issue had not been agitated before the court, that cannot be a ground for review. 33. In Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Ray and Ors, AIR1975Ori64 , a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court considered this aspect and held as under:- Failure to argue a point is not an envisageable ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, according to which in only three cases mere review is permitted. Those cases are where new material has been overlooked by excusable misfortune, mistake or there is an error apparent on the face of record and where there is 'any other sufficient reason'. The present case is not covered by the first two classes of cases. No new material has been overlooked by excusable misfortune or mistake; it is a case of an existing material being overlooked by the counsel and not a case of excusable misfortune nor a mistake. There is also no e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., [2002]2SCR620 . 37. In Bhagwati Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Anr., AIR1977All163 , the Allahabad High Court rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, observing as under:- It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks t should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued. 38. The Court also considered the judgment of the Federal Court in Mt. Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur and Ors. AIR 1950 FC 131, wherein an observation has been made that review is permissible if mistake has been committed by a counsel. The Court did not follow the said judgment, observing that it was a case in which a mistake had crept in the judgment of the High Court owing to an over-Sight, Therefore, it was a case wherein review was m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw of review can be summarised that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other sufficient reason must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Even the judgment given subsequent to the decision in a case can be no ground for entertaining the review. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court. If a counsel has argued a case to his satisfaction and he had not raised the particular point for any reason whatsoever, it cannot be a ground of review for the reason that he was the master of his case and might not have consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
