9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t certain periods taken by the appellants were not taken into consideration, while computing the period of 30 days. In the event, those periods are also computed, the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal would be barred by limitation. To sustain the said argument, the learned counsel would submit that the copy applications were returned in both the cases on 16.8.2001 and the appellants have filed writ petitions for issue of the copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority only on 5.9.2001 and there is a delay of 20 days. This Court had taken into consideration the eight days delay taken by the appellants viz., the period between 23.7.2001, the date on which the notice of timing conference was served on the Bus Owners' Association and 1.8.2001, the date on which the copy applications were made. This Court has also taken into consideration a further period of delay on the part of the appellant between 25.9.2001, the date on which the copy was furnished on the appellants and 3.10.2001, the date on which, the revision petition was filed. In the event, this 20 days is also included the total number of days would come to 36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, the learned counsel would submit that the copy application was furnished to the appellant on 25.9.2001 and the revision was filed on 4.10.2001 i.e., beyond a period of 30 days. She would submit that the grant was on 27.9.2000. The grantee started operating the vehicle on 3.11.2000. The writ appellant came to know of the same immediately when the vehicle was put on road. However, he filed the application only on 19.7.2001 with a delay of nearly 8 months. Hence, the revision petition is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the learned counsel would submit that the writ appeal ought to have been dismissed. 6. Insofar as W.A. No. 1993 of 2003 is concerned, the learned counsel would submit that the grantee put the vehicle on road on 4.10.2000. Even before the copy application was made by the appellant on 26.4.2001, he made a representation to the authorities for reconsideration on 28.3.2001 and therefore, it must be presumed that the appellant had the constructive knowledge of the grant and in that event, there is a delay of nearly six months from the date of knowledge till the date when the copy application was filed. If this period is taken into consideration, the revision p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he new pleas on the basis of fresh materials we will have to necessarily consider the scope for this Court to exercise the power of review. The issue is not res integra as it had come up before the Apex Court for more than one occasion, where the Apex Court has clearly laid down the scope of the power of this Court to review an order. 9. For the said purpose, useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in SMT. MEERA BHANJA -vs- SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHURY AIR 1995 SC 455. The Supreme Court, in paragraph-8, has broad-lined the principles on exercise of review. 8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, 1979 CriLJ 908, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: It is true there is nothing in Article 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I DEVI AND OTHERS (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Supreme Court has laid the law on the subject as follows:- 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (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 in 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 review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment-debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a review of the order of Gupta, J. on the grounds detailed in the review petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and we accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 6-3-1997. 11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is well settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not on erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The said power cannot be exercised as is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected . A review application also cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise . Similarly, the error apparent on the face of the record must be such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
