Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (4) TMI 1992

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... action against the Review Petitioner / 7th Respondent's unauthorised construction located at Door No.84, 85-A, Kumbakonam Road, Ward-A, Block No.50, T.S.No.37, 38, 39, Panruti Town as per the letters of the 4th Respondent dated 10.06.2016 and 15.12.2017 and by affording opportunity to all concerned. In short, the plea of the petitioner therein is that when the construction has been made in violation of the sanctioned plan by the Review Petitioner / 7th Respondent, the entire violated portion has got to be razed to the ground. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition on 07.02.2018, by holding as under: The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to direct the 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... building in violation of the Plan. In this case, as stated supra, admittedly there is no Planning permission given by any one, much less the authorities in question beyond ground floor + first floor. 14. As far as the undisputed facts are concerned, there is a building in existence which is in violation of the Plan, for which a notice has been issued and that a communication dated 06.04.2016 from the Panruti Municipality has been issued to the 7th respondent which is very clear that the 7th respondent cannot carry on with a building construction, which has not been approved. If the contention of the 7th respondent is accepted that when an application is pending before the authorities, it is open to her to construct without any sanction and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... important matter or evidence which after 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; (ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review; and (iii) or any other sufficient reasons. 7. The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al which it ought to have considered has escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason or because it suffers from a patent error which cannot be sustained by any process of reasoning. The Court cannot under cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case over again because it feels then that the assessment of evidence, etc., done formerly was faulty or even incorrect. An erroneous view of evidence of law is not a ground for review. A wrong exposition of the law, a wrong application of the law and failure to apply the correct law have been held to be not a ground for review. 10. In Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Supreme Court, while considering the sco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates